Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How does 10 supports by editors who know nothing about Indian history and six opposes by editors who do become a consensus to move?[edit]

I see this to be nothing but an awful page move done in the middle of the night as it were. The title "Presidencies and provinces of British India" was chosen after a year-long RfC in 2008 and 2009, the discussion presided by admin @Philip Baird Shearer: and steered by arbitrator (now retired) Nichalp. I will also post at WT:INDIA where the knowledgeable editors are completely unaware of this discussion; indeed I myself had forgotten because I did not think it has a chance. I am on vacation now. Contrast this presumptuous closing by an editor, @No such user:, with no history of any contribution to Indian history with PBS's considerate, inclusive, shepherding of all the participants into achieving a consensus. The new page title, "British India," is not only historically inaccurate, but it also speaks to the worst kind of British irredentism, which is apparently still alive and well on Wikipedia. Not to mention that some brand-new editors (most likely sockpuppets of banned Wikipedia editors) who have a personal gripe against me (as exhibited in other discussions across WP in August, September, and October) have voted in support. I am frustrated. This move is awful, just awful, disastrously awful. Pinging some admins, seasoned India and Pakistan editors, : @Vanamonde93, Doug Weller, Drmies, Titodutta, Sitush, Bishonen, RexxS, Kautilya3, Saqib, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and SpacemanSpiff: Please do something. I am on vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please come down and assume good faith. You're throwing wild accusations around, constructing a "personal gripe against you", seeing "sockpuppets of banned Wikipedia editors" and accusing people of "worst kind of British irredentism". I'm a disinterested user who has closed hundreds of requested moves so far, and I'm helping clean long WP:RM backlog. The RM discussion above was open for nearly two months. I don't count votes at all, but I understand (and share) astonishment at the previous title by the original poster's and several other editors', and I did not find your arguments sufficiently persuasive in the discussion. I've left a longish closing rationale, but it seems you're currently too upset to even notice it, let alone understand the reasoning. No such user (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually six opposes. LearnIndology is one of those new editors who has been opposing me here there and everywhere, along with Zakaria. Look at their history. See how many times they have been warned. See here. Do you know anything about Indian history? Page titles are not only about Wikilawyering. You've caused inestimable damage to WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Fowler, I don't know about British irredentism, but "British India" is a perfectly well-understood term for those of us from the subcontinent. It was a state and a country, which has now fissured into three countries, and hopefully no more than that. I am not all that fussed about the technical distinctions between "British India" and "Indian India" (i.e., "princely India"). What is of concern is the messy border we inherited from British India, which is currently taking up 90% of my time on Wikipedia. The "Indian" India's border was apparently more messed up than that of "British" India. So if there is a big distinction, that is where it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, @Kautilya3:, you should be supporting British Raj --> British India as well. A little silly don't you think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, "British Raj" should be "British Indian Empire", this is English Wikipedia. "Raj" is not an English word. It fails WP:COMMONNAME. Raj is a Hindi term, not an English word. Even today or yesteryears, "Raj" never became part of the English lexicon like "shampoo" or "juggernaut". LearnIndology (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, the two pages can be merged into one and then we wouldn't have this problem. "British Raj" is not an Indian term in any way, despite a Hindi word being part of it. Indians never use "Raj" in English in this sense. If they do, it would be only to demean the target (cf. "Hindu Raj", "Muslim Raj", "Congress Raj" etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, @Kautilya3:, will you be requesting all the historians and economic historians of colonial India (Indian, British, American, and Australasian; some in their graves) to change "British Raj" to "British India" in their writings as well? Off the top of my head, I can count many who make a distinction between "British India" and the "British Raj" (the latter meaning not only "British controlled India," which "British India" does not, but also the period of dominion (e.g. "He was born during the Raj"; you can't say, "He was born during British India.". The Raj can mean the government in power ("The Raj had a great interest in tea" means something quite different from "British India had a great interest in tea."). "British India" can mean the "British in India" (i.e. those domiciled or longlived in India, which "the Raj" never did): Here they are: Thomas R. Metcalf, Amiya Bagchi Christopher Bayly, Sumit Sarkar, Eric Stokes, Barbara D. Metcalf, Sugata Bose, Judith M. Brown, D. A. Low, Tirthankar Roy, Stanley Wolpert, P. J. Marshall, Ayesha Jalal, Percival Spear, Irfan Habib. You are not making a good argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The move is certainly a problem - I'm afraid I didn't see it, or I would have opposed. It is pretty clear that most contributing had not read the article, & thought they were talking about the material covered at British Raj. It might make more sense to move that to "British India" and restore the old name (or another) here. I don't think the current situation will last long. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move is supported by consensus. The WP:COMMONNAME is "British India". It makes no sense to have an article about the provinces of British India without having an article on British India itself. Discussing the provinces of British India in an article about British India is the best solution and together we have reached that goal. LearnIndology (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The common name for what, though? What most people think of as "British India" fits better with British Raj (a term nowadays less familiar to people outside South Asia and Britain I think) than with the content here. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, British Raj is the British Indian Empire. British Indian Empire is British India (provinces) and Princely states (Indian rulers under British paramountcy). So, British Raj is British India + princely states. Raj is just a Hindi word for “rule”, it just confuses non-Hindi speaking readers. British Raj is basically British Indian Empire (British India + princely states). LearnIndology (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm perfectly familiar with the vocabulary, thank you - unlike I think most participants in the RM discussion, many of whom pretty clearly didn't see things this way. So there's no need to be patronizing. In fact the meaning these days of both British Raj and British India is a good deal more flexible than that, and probably always was. This article needs something in the title to convey that a) it only covers parts of India, and b) it covers the history of the administrative divisions and not much else. "British India" does not do a) for a broad readership, especially outside the subcontinent, nor b) for anyone at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This post by LearnIndology typifies the quality of the discourse that has enabled this page move, the evidence to the contrary in scholarly sources notwithstanding, or for that matter the OED entry "British Raj" entry, some of whose phrasing they took from us in April 2009. See the Talk:British Raj page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the following LearnIndology? Chopped liver?

From the OED search "British Raj": Showing 1-2 of 2 results in 2 entries Widen search? Find ‘British Raj’ in: » phrases (2)» definitions (11)» etymologies (0)» quotations (10)» full text (16) View as: List | TimelineSort by: Entry | Frequency | Date 1. British Raj in British, adj. and n. View full entry ...(see raj2)....

2. British Raj in raj, n. View full entry1857 ...spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (18581947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use:... I will desist from giving the long entries to avoid infringing on their copyright. Seriously, please don't waste people's time with false assertions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @No such user:, I am concerned that you have given the precision argument far too little weight in your closure, and far too much weight to arguments that make no reference to the topic of this article, only to the scope of a putative overview article. The absence of an overview article is not sufficient to shoehorn this article into that role when it has a clearly more limited scope. I would ask you to reconsider. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no dog in this fight, but the correct venue to dispute the move is WP:Move review. -- Calidum 18:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a large part of the problem is that this rather dry article on the history of the administrative divisions was not watchlisted by most editors active on Indian pages, & therefore most of the contributors to the RM discussion were new to Indian history and seemed to think they were commenting on the central page on "British India", which this is not. It was unfortunate, and probably a mistake, that "British India" redirected here, rather than British Raj (though that only covers 1858 onwards). I only saw the complaint by F&F about the result on the India-related noticeboard. I don't think the debate itself had been notified there, which would have brought out more editors who know the field. Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Vanamonde that the closer hasn't properly weighted the arguments (though, frankly, that's not so easy to do in the first place). One possible solution is that the closer withdraw their close and keep the discussion open longer. (I'm a little busy with holiday celebrations - family only, I assure you - or I would give a longer comment!) --RegentsPark (comment) 22:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would certainly be a way forward, allowing the discussion to be properly advertised, and so me and others who didn't see it to contribute. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am certainly amenable to undoing the close, but note that the discussion was open for two months; and it was advertised at WP:RM and automatically at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts. Since the Move Review is backlogged as well (and I don't see what long-term useful outcome it may produce), I suppose I'll just undo it reclose as "no consensus" given the post-move objections.
        @Vanamonde93: The absence of an overview article is not sufficient to shoehorn this article into that role when it has a clearly more limited scope – I agree with the general statement, but clearly more limited scope is in the eye of the beholder. This article's lead gives an overview of British involvement between 1612 and 1947; its sections briefly address scope of every phase; British India redirected here; and finally, it is linked from {{Colonial India}} sidebar in a manner that indicates it's a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article. Such setup is rather confusing, and the discussion is best summarized by RegentsPark's comment If the term is imprecise, we should have an article outlining the dimensions of that imprecision. Even if it be a sort of extended disambiguation page. It does make sense that we shouldn't redirect British India to this Presidencies and Provinces of British India while also saying that the Presidencies and Provinces are not all of British India.
        In retrospect, something needs to be done. Moving this article was something but I understand that it appears to be "shoehorning". No such user (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @No such user: I agree that the structure and the way the navigation is set up is confusing, but I'd suggest that the way to address that is to have a comprehensive discussion about that, rather than a move request. A long-standing problem we have is that the regulars often do not involve themselves with more gnomish things like navboxes, DABs, and redirects (something to which I please guilty); and so they're often a mess. I think the best way forward is for you to amend the closure to "no consensus", or to reopen the discussion, after which one of us can initiate another discussion about how to solve the navigation/overview issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod, Vanamonde and RegentsPark. I agree that this a dry page. I agree also that there are various problems.

Zones of British governance in India, whether initially in the form of tenancies (granted by sovereign Indian rulers, such as the Mughals) or later of sovereignty (gained as a result of British conquests), had existed from 1612 to 1947. "British India" can apply to all.

With time, the British began to rule regions in India both "directly" (after annexing them) or "indirectly." Indirect rule began during Company rule in India when subsidiary alliances were signed allowing Indian rulers to retain control of internal affairs but only after ceding the defense, communication, and foreign affairs to the British. It became the model of British rule elsewhere in the non-European empire (southeast Asia, Africa).

Just before the Indian rebellion of 1857, most of India was under direct or indirect British rule. After the rebellion, especially after Victoria's Proclamation to the rulers and people of India, this dyarchy became formalized. The regions of indirect rule—commonly named "Princely States" (the terms "King" or "Queen" were reserved for the British sovereign)—were guaranteed by the British Crown (they could not be annexed for a more direct rule by the British); the regions of direct rule or crown rule (presided by a Viceroy) became the main ground of British direct intervention in India (whether of infrastructure: railways, roads, telegraph, canals, bridges, buildings (both functional and ostentatious), law and order, and so forth. This latter India was sometimes called "British India."

So Kashmir was never in British India, was never referred by the British to have been so (for it would have insinuated a disregard for Queen Victoria's personal guarantee to the Indian rulers); neither were Hyderabad, Mysore, the states of Rajputana, and 500 other Indian states, whose fabulously rich princes were educated at Eton and Harrow, Cambridge and Oxford, played polo and cricket, bought Rolls-Royces, ... but did not do much else.

With the passage of time, however, especially of post-colonial time, "British India" has acquired increasing meaning as a sociological term describing the lives, mores, customs, language, of the British in India. Thus the "language of British India" is the English spoken by the British in India in adaptation to their environment (whether by directly importing words from Indian vernaculars (e.g. "jungle," "dungaree," "pyjamas,")) or by creating neologisms (e.g. "hill station," "tiffin)). However, the language of British India never means "the language(s) spoken by Indians in British India," i.e. the Indians living in regions of India directly administered by the British. These are the kinds of issues that get in the way of a simple page move of the "regions or administrative units of governance," i.e. "Presidencies and provinces of India" to "British India," which is a loose-knit term of several meanings, some still evolving.

I should add that despite my initial outburst at @No such user:, for which he has my apologies, my bigger gripe is against the Wikipedia page move process that allowed some editors to walk off the street and begin a page move cold, in the dead of night, without the courtesy first of a talk page post, let alone an RfC, or a post at the talk pages of WikiProjects India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. How does Wikipedia allow that? That process is demented. But no hurry. The page has probably long needed fixing. It will eventually get there.

Spurred by RegentPark's post, I had better start making the cranberry sauce. My responsibilities for the American ritual tomorrow, commonly rendered obscene in its modern observance, but perhaps saved this year by COVID, are that (I have the cranberries), chestnut stuffing (I have the chestnuts), and taking care of the cats—one of which is not doing so well, needing both steroids and isolation, the rest of which might leap up on the table, and all of which have wild cousin ancestors which roamed the woods here at the time of the Pilgrims mysterious appearance 400 years ago. So they know what the merry-making is worth. That quadricentennial is on December 18. All the best to everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the new move close (as no consensus)[edit]

  • Firstly many thanks to No such user for following the post-close discussion, & changing his close. Where does this leave us, in terms of the various terms and article titles?
  • Lets look at British India. User:No such user has returned this to redirect here. I don't think this is optimal; from the wording of the original move proposal I'm pretty sure it was this redirect that provoked it. I only realized yesterday that British India (disambiguation) existed (and I've seen clearer disam pages). Nothing seems to link to it. We could just make the plain term go to the disam page, but it is evidently a popular search term, and people rightly try to avoid these going to disam pages. Personally I think this should go to the effective main article on the subject, which I see as (current name) British Raj. Yes there is a date issue, as that only covers after 1858, but even so I think this will be the best fit for what most readers and searchers are looking for.
  • Next the "main" article, currently at British Raj. F&F mentions above that there are constant moves over there to rename it to British India, using the same sort of arguments seen in the RM discussion above (but applied far more appropriately, imo). It does cause issues in blurring the distinction applied within an Indian context between "British India" and the princely states. Another possibility, which currently redirects there, is British Indian Empire. That unambiguously covers the whole area, and more firmly indicates the post-1858 period I think. Personally, I was happy with "British Raj", but in the light of the evidence of confusion all these names cause among many readers, I now think it should probably be changed, perhaps to British Indian Empire, although I could live with "British India" going there. I also note User:LearnIndology's dislike for "Raj" above. British rule in India, now redirecting to the "Raj" article, might be another possibility.
  • The restored title here ("Presidencies and provinces of British India") might be changed, although as noted above, it was confirmed by a long process some years ago. I don't think a proposed move to one of the "general" titles would be a good idea, or would now succeed.
  • In his new close User:No such user says he thinks "the way forward is to write a proper overview article at British India (or a similar title such as British rule in India) outlining the entire 1612-1947 period and explaining the terminology applied then and now." That would essentially involve merging British Raj and Company rule in India (1757-1858), and adding on the first century & a half from somewhere. Personally I think such an article would be too long (current raw size of the two 216+127 kbytes), & I guess more readers are really looking for the later periods than the earlier. Plus we also have the sections at History of India, the best quick overview. Also, it is a truth universally acknowledged that on Wikipedia it is much easier to get editors to participate in long talk page arguments than to rewrite articles to a high standard.
  • I'm putting these up for preliminary discussion, & will make proposals for what seems popular. Happy Thanksgiving to all those who are! Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I support your wish to move British Raj to British Indian Empire. The OED mentions that the British Raj was in India, but we do not have the article about India that the British Raj was in. It certainly isn't the Republic of India. If we do that, this article can stay with its present name. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be to have an article called British India that describes the state and the country that it was.
  • You can also have a page called British Raj which might go into the historical developments, the governance institutions etc.
  • The present page, if it is to exist at all, should be titled something like Administration of British India or Direct rule in British India (and there need be no connotations of a geographical entity).
  • We recognize that the separation of "British India" and "princely India" was just a matter of administrative convenience, and has no particular import to anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
  • P.S.: Burma, if it needs to make an appearance, could go into British Raj, but not British India. (Wasn't the Secretary of State for "India and Burma"?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, I am still looking into it. On the surface, the current British Raj article does have a lot of the material that is needed for "British India", but it is a bit diffuse and mixed in with the "British Raj" material. Roughly speaking, the division I am seeking is for British India to describe the geography of the country and those aspects of its history that are of lasting importance (and continue into the successor states) whereas British Raj can have all other material of Raj nostalgia variety. I do not support the ongoing efforts to preempt the discussion and do a quick fix. I would like to thank you for taking the time and initiating this discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I explain above, I think that article is currently called British Raj. I'll ask you the same question I ask Kautilya3 above, "Does the present British Raj roughly cover what you want in "British India"?". Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are any reasonable objections, I will go ahead and restore the British India article as it was before it was redirected.[1] That's the new conclusion of the move discussion closed by No such user and it's a sensible one. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 1990'sguy and No such user, restoring British India is the first step in solving the confusion. As others mentioned above and in the closing, British India deserves an article, instead of a redirect. Too many people get confused. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like an overview article much more. I would possibly split it in sections, referred to subarticles via {{main}} and removed the "subdivisions" section as less relevant. Additionalz a paragraph or section devoted to terminology should also explain that "British India" loosely may refer to the entire Raj. But it's a first step in solving the confusion, as Zakaria1978 said. No such user (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was support for this so I went ahead and did it. Kautilya3, I leave it to you to expand British India. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, now there's another editor, @1990'sguy:, with no history of contributions to this or related articles, who has taken a summary I wrote in 2008 or 2009 (which we decided not to use at conclusion of a long discussion, with input also by Casliber, and has turned it into British India, not to mention created a content fork. Seriously guys, does anyone here (with the exception of Johnbod) like to take me on and ask for an independent expert evaluation? I will retire from Wikipedia if they rule otherwise. This is not about Wikilawyering by anyone walking off the street. Has anyone here made any contribution to either Company rule in India, British Raj, Presidencies and provinces of British India, India, Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (and 10 of the 12 famines therein), and lord know how many other articles? Who do you think wrote that? I'm not claiming ownership, but competence means something. I've reverted that edit by 90's guy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, if you're not claiming WP: OWNERSHIP, then why would you reverse the creation of the British India article?[2] That was the ruling in the move discussion above, made by No such user[3] and supported here by Kautilya3, 1990'sguy, Zakaria1978, and myself. Undo what you just did or I can do it for you. LearnIndology (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LearnIndology, please don't overplay your reprieve. You have been on the verge of being topic banned from South Asia related topics.

(To the others) "British India" never means the "British Raj" except in newspapers articles written by generally clueless reporters, but never by scholars, never, especially, by historians. The "British Indian Empire" was never an official term, only "India," was, despite the Imperial Gazetteer of India (whose 26 volumes on my shelves you can see in that article's images) devoting the first four volumes to the "Indian Empire" (but not the British Indian Empire) (as Rjensen will tell you), and despite the "British Indian Empire" passports, you will see on the internet. For correct usage see the IOC page on the 1928 Summer Olympics highlights, or the Britannica page on the original members of the League of Nations, 1922, or the founding members of the International Labour Organization, 1922, or the Founding members of the United Nations, 1945. As RegentsPark and others have observed, had the British upon quitting India chosen to name the successor states Hindustan and Pakistan, there would have been no issue, no ambiguity. "India" would then have meant British Raj, unequivocally, that is. Bbut because of the ambiguity of the name "India," historians in the last 50 years have begun to use "British Raj" for the loose-knit "empire" between 1858 and 1947. As I've indicated in a discussion thread above, this term has been used by the major historians of colonial South Asia.

Besides, the cynical move by Disraeli to crown Victoria "Empress of India," much parodied by the Punch and Gladstone, happened in 1876 (see the image caption Bihar_famine_of_1873–74#Relief), not 1858, the year in which the British Raj began. British Raj is a widely used term, used by scholars for the last 40 years or more. Wikipedia is not a place for anachronistic page moves. Does Britannica have a page on "British India?" It does not. Does it have a page on the British Raj? Yes, it does. It is written by Stanley Wolpert. Again, the main meaning of "British India" is "Presidencies and provinces of India under British rule." But "British India" has important other meanings. They belong to "British India (disambiguation)" The other meanings are captured by books such as "Poetry of British India," "Romantic representations of British India" (Google their introductions and table of contents). Please discuss, but please don't make any hurried page moves. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS The terms "India," "British India," and "Native States," are defined thus:

India, lying within the limits thus defined, consists of two parts, British India and the territories of Native chiefs, or to use the more common phrase, Native States. Parliament in the Interpretation Act of 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. cap. 63, sec. 18) has adopted the following definitions; ‘The expression British India shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty’s dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India, or through any Governor or other officer subordinate to the Governor-General of India. The expression India shall mean British India together with any territories of any Native Prince ..." (See Imperial Gazeteer of India (Indian Empire: Administrative, pages 59 and 60).

That usage was defined by an act of the British Parliament. Note, in particular the margin note, "The States under British suzerainty are in "India," but not in "British India." Thus Kashmir, a princely state, was never in British India; contrast that with the Bombay Presidency, which always was. I apologize to Johnbod and Kautilya3 for losing my cool, but in all honesty, the users LearnIndology and Zakaria1978 are not here in good faith. They have been opposing me across a wide range of topics, Talk:Urdu, Talk:Sanskrit, ... I'm forgetting the names now. I say, "X." They appear, out of the blue, as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and reply, "Not-X." Some admin please give them another warning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Had this been 1909, I would have no hesitation moving "Presidencies and provinces of British India" to "British India," as No such user did. However, in the last 50, years "British India" has come to acquire quite a few other meanings, sociological, artistic, literary, ... as I've indicated above. Some article needs to be written about it. The best outcome would be a longish British India (disambiguation), but I don't know if WP allows that. The other pages Company rule in India and British Raj are fine (in their scope, that is). OK. I have to go now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, Wikipedia involves community-wide discussion and everyone is welcome to participate here. My academic interest is in the Raj era and I am frequently consulted in my career to speak on this topic. While Fowler is trying to threaten me, he himself has canvassed editors here to overturn a clear consensus[4] and has bullied the closer to try to get him to reverse his decision. [5] I never came to the Sanskrit discussion as Fowler claims and I was not the only one opposing you on Urdu (everyone was against you). Can some admin please take action on Fowler for canvassing and ownership? Your user page says you are on a vacation, yet you actively editing every day; this is not in good faith and is deceptive. LearnIndology (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LearnIndology! Yes, I am perplexed why Fowler would claim you engaged in Sanskrit. Clearly, in Talk:Sanskrit you did not. I hope Fowler is not being dishonest, if not, the user should strike that comment -- and calling both of us Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- that is not nice and clearly WP:NPA. Anyhow, pinging Khestwol to provide his expertise here on the subject. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, then considering everything, the best solution seems to be to merge these two pages into one. We can explain in a termionology section, that there are two senses in which the term "British India" is used, there was a princely India that was part of the Empire than the real thing, and we would be home. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I agree. Please proceed. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which two pages? And under what title. I don't think I'm going to support this solution, when I understand it. If you mean merging the risen-from-the grave "British India" into here, that mostly, like this article, covers the administrative divisions, with a good deal of overlap, and after the failed RM to move this to "British India", merging something else in and then just renaming it, would be blatent gaming, and would not stand. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting merging this page into British Raj. I see insufficient reason for a separate page on the provinces. "British India" will then be a redirect to British Raj. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Including "Administration under the Company (1793–1858)" and other bits outside the timeframe of British Raj? As I've said, I support retargeting the redirect to British Raj, but there's really no need to merge in this page. British Raj already has, imo, enough or too much on the administrative divisions. So I don't see the need for this. Given all the above, a formal merge proposal is needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Johnbod: and @Kautilya3: for the clarifying the discussion.

Section break[edit]

Here are my views. I don't see a good argument for a merge: "British India" into British Raj. "British India" has always been an informal term, with the primary meaning "Presidencies and provinces of India under British rule," but with important other meanings. To avoid the tautology involved in redirecting British India to Presidencies and provinces of British India, I see a good case for moving the latter to Presidencies and provinces of India under British rule. I believe the best solution thereafter is to expand British India (disambiguation) in the manner (or with the flavor) of British India (primary meaning and secondary meanings) or British India (denotation and connotations).

There is a much bigger danger in redirecting "British India" to the British Raj. People will begin to conflate the two. ( Aside: Many years ago, I had suggested that the British Raj page be moved to Crown rule in India, a counterpoint to Company rule in India, with a precedent of usage in the scholarly literature. However, it is too late for that now. In the intervening period, some 14 years, the term "British Raj" has come to be used widely in the same scholarly literature, in part driven by WP usage.) All the hard work of making the usage precise in all the colonial India related history pages will go to waste. Allow me one single example (with the understanding that there are hundreds of others).

In Peter Hardy's landmark book: Hardy, Peter (1972), The Muslims of British India, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-09783-3 "British India" applies both to the period 1757–1847 and 1858–1947, but only to regions of Company sovereignty (on behalf of the Crown) or British government sovereignty:

1757–1857: "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." (See page 2).
"The elections of 1937 did reveal, however, the strength of Congress as an all-India movement in the general constituencies. It won 716 of the 1,161 'open' constituencies it contested. Of the eleven provinces of British India, Congress secured a clear majority in six and emerged as the largest single party in three others. (See page 225)

Without meaning to sound presumptuous, I have been thinking about this off and on for 12 years (admittedly more off than on). I don't see an easy solution other than expanding the British India dab page in the manner/flavor described above. I do see a good case for the page move I mentioned above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am hoping that the two of you, Johnbod and K3, and others: RegentsPark, No other user, ... can come up with a creative resolution. I so have to go now. ( I hear my better half's footstep upstairs. It is time to put away the bag of chips, start making coffee and attending to RL. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A suitable type of article here would be a WP:BROADCONCEPT; I recommend reading that for an overview. Now, that is not terribly useful how such an article would be structured. In my view, for the start, it could be a short-ish overview article about terminology and scope of "British India" and a quick skim of 350 years of British colonial presence in India, with links to the existing detailed articles. I don't think we should merge anything anywhere, there's a plenty of material around to be comfortably navigable. Here's a sketch of the lead section and article structure that I have in mind (your mileage may vary):
British colonial rule in India, loosely referred to as British India, began in 1612 with the establishment of trading posts on coastal locations, and gradually expanded, culminating in the formation of British Raj in 1858. The Raj (British Indian empire) lasted until 1947, when India acquired independence.

In the narrow sense, British India refers only to those provinces under the direct British rule, excluding numerous suzerain princely states that were technically ruled by regional monarchs.

==Terminology==
==History==
===East India Company===
===Indian Rebellion of 1857===
===British Raj===
===Independence===
==Administrative division==
No such user (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. See also how Portuguese India summarizes the whole period from 1505 to 1961. I appreciate that the British involvement and terminology is even more complex, but in my opinion it is already well covered in existing articles and just needs a better overview. I do not refer to writing quality, just to the structure. No such user (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No such user, I like your idea. It seems like most people here have supported a "British India" article. I have no problem with you restarting it with what you have here. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user and 1990'sguy: Yes, an overview article on British India is badly needed. I also don't see the need for making merges when the articles that are here already are long enough. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, he is not suggesting "an overview article" & if "most people here have supported a "British India" article", it was not a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article they had in mind - this is a sort of super-disambiguation page. I'm open to this, so long as it sticks to explaining the various senses of the term. I'm surprised btw that Portuguese India could be offered as a model for anything! Danish India, on an even smaller topic, is a good deal better. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 I think we should let No such user speak for himself. He mentioned that it would be an overview article and I support that too. The article will be British India, not British India (disambiguation), following Portuguese India and Danish India. LearnIndology (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be clear, British Raj is the overview article, and I don't support creating a fork of that. I would support a shortish super-disam page on the various uses of the term. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, the sentence, "British colonial rule in India, loosely referred to as British India," is incorrect. There is no broad-sense meaning of British India that is geographically anything more than Presidencies and provinces of British India. The broad-sense connotations are not geographical; they are sociological, political, literary, and cultural. That broad-sense page outlined above cannot be called "British India." there is no precedent for that in the scholarly literature. I have already quoted and cited Hardy's book. I'm sure I can find dozens of others, all published by academic publishers. @No such user: Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could call the broadscale or multiscale dab page British rule in India, which currently redirects to the Raj (which is incorrect). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but not precise[edit]

QUOTE: "British India" did not include the many princely states which continued to be ruled by Indian princes, though by the 19th century under British suzerainty—their defence, foreign relations, and communications relinquished to British authority and their internal rule closely monitored. END OF QUOTE

The above statement is much more true that the original crap that is there in Wikipedia pages.

The truth is that even though the British-Indian government did assure the security of the local kingdom, there was no conceding of sovereignty to British-India by at least some of the major kingdoms. This is very clearly mentioned in Travancore State Manual written by V Nagam Iyya. The issue in this regard was the judicial action on John Liddel, Commercial Agent at Alleppey by the Travancore Judiciary.

With regard to admitting that the local kingdoms were not part of British-India, it must be said that Wikipedia needs to correct the error in this regard that has been placed on various Wikipedia pages by the idiot Indian academic fools. 117.196.31.188 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we make British India redirect to British Raj?[edit]

This is as the two terms are commonly used interchangeably. Disabled Lemon (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Disabled Lemon: I was going to post here along the same lines. My suggestion was going to be to create disambiguation page with one link to British Raj and another to Presidencies and provinces of British India. The problem is I might not have the time to engage in a full discussion. Later maybe.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
British rule in India EnTerbury (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India[edit]

The name of the nation that existed till 1947 seems to be India. Or was British-India the official name? 117.213.3.170 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not with the hyphen, and basically no. A complicated question, discussed in 2020 above here, and last year at a more appropriate venue - Talk:British Raj/Archive 12 perhaps? Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India&oldid=1216336186"