Jump to content

Talk:British Raj/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Was India during the Raj a separate state in personal union with GB?

@RegentsPark: @Blanche of King's Lynn: I've been asked to weigh in on the issue of whether or not India in the 20th century was a separate state, in personal union with Great Britain. I'm strapped for time, but will try to quickly answer that question.

India is a tricky case. It was certainly no banana colony. From the very beginning of the Raj, Indian nationalists had hoped that India would take a trajectory similar to that of dominions such as Australia and Canada. The situation after the Indian rebellion of 1857 is well described in the last two sentences of that page's lead:

On 1 November 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation to Indians, which while lacking the authority of a constitutional provision,[a][1] promised rights similar to those of other British subjects.[b][c][2] In the following decades, when admission to these rights was not always forthcoming, Indians were to pointedly refer to the Queen's proclamation in growing avowals of a new nationalism.[d][3][e][4]

It is true that there had been several constitutional reforms, beginning at the very beginning of the Raj, with the Government of India Act 1858, and continuing through Indian Councils Act 1909 (Minto-Morley reforms) and Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms, to Government of India Act 1935, which allowed increasing degrees of limited self-government for India, and which became models for similar reforms elsewhere in the empire. In major part this was the case because India by the turn of the 20th century had a nationalist movement spearheaded by the Indian National Congress (founded 1885) which too became a model for nationalist movements elsewhere in the (non-European) empire.[f][5] Still, India was nowhere near being a dominion in personal union with Great Britain, which happened only for the brief period 1947–1950, during the existence of the Dominion of India. Ian Copland has described this well in his book India: 1885–1947:

The viceroy, Lord Linlithgow's, announcement in September 1939 that India was at war with Germany jolted the Indian people into acknowledging a reality that time had somewhat obscured: India was still an integra part of the British Empire. There had been , to be sure, some devolution of power. But even the reforms introduced under the Government of India Act of 1935, which conceded the substance of self-government at the provincial level, contained significant checks designed to protect adn perpetuate a hard core of British control.

I have to run now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ "Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858 laid the foundation for Indian secularism and established the semi-legal framework that would govern the politics of religion in colonial India for the next century. ... It promised civil equality for Indians regardless of their religious affiliation, and state non-interference in Indians' religious affairs. Although the Proclamation lacked the legal authority of a constitution, generations of Indians cited the Queen's proclamation in order to claim, and to defend, their right to religious freedom." (page 23)[1]
  2. ^ The proclamation to the "Princes, Chiefs, and People of India," issued by Queen Victoria on November 1, 1858. "We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligation of duty which bind us to all our other subjects." (p. 2)
  3. ^ "When the governance of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown in 1858, she (Queen Victoria) and Prince Albert intervened in an unprecedented fashion to turn the proclamation of the transfer of power into a document of tolerance and clemency. ... they ... insisted on the clause that stated that the people of India would enjoy the same protection as all subjects of Britain. Over time, this royal intervention led to the Proclamation of 1858 becoming known in the Indian subcontinent as 'the Magna Carta of Indian liberties', a phrase which Indian nationalists such as Gandhi later took up as they sought to test equality under imperial law" (pages 38–39)[2]
  4. ^ "In purely legal terms, (the proclamation) kept faith with the principles of liberal imperialism and appeared to hold out the promise that British rule would benefit Indians and Britons alike. But as is too often the case with noble statements of faith, reality fell far short of theory, and the failure on the part of the British to live up to the wording of the proclamation would later be used by Indian nationalists as proof of the hollowness of imperial principles. (page 76)"[3]
  5. ^ "Ignoring ...the conciliatory proclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858, Britishers in India saw little reason to grant Indians a greater control over their own affairs. Under these circumstances, it was not long before the seed-idea of nationalism implanted by their reading of Western books began to take root in the minds of intelligent and energetic Indians."[4]
  6. ^ "... anti-colonial movements ... which, like many other nationalist movements elsewhere in the empire, were strongly infuenced by the Indian National Congress."[5]

Citations

  1. ^ a b Adcock, C.S. (2013), The Limits of Tolerance: Indian Secularism and the Politics of Religious Freedom, Oxford University Press, pp. 23–25, ISBN 978-0-19-999543-1
  2. ^ a b Taylor, Miles (2016), "The British royal family and the colonial empire from the Georgians to Prince George", in Aldrish, Robert; McCreery, Cindy (ed) (ed.), Crowns and Colonies: European Monarchies and Overseas Empires, Manchester University Press, pp. 38–39, ISBN 978-1-5261-0088-7 {{citation}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  3. ^ a b Peers, Douglas M. (2013), India Under Colonial Rule: 1700-1885, Routledge, p. 76, ISBN 978-1-317-88286-2
  4. ^ a b Embree, Ainslie Thomas; Hay, Stephen N.; Bary, William Theodore De (1988), "Nationalism Takes Root: The Moderates", Sources of Indian Tradition: Modern India and Pakistan, Columbia University Press, p. 85, ISBN 978-0-231-06414-9
  5. ^ a b Marshall, P. J. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Cambridge University Press, p. 179, ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes in Railways section

Please be aware that when you make such major changes in longstanding text and images in old much trafficked articles such as British Raj, you need to discuss what it is you are attempting to do on the talk page—if not the first time, certainly after a revert. Please see BRD cycle. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Hey Bro,

Apologies if I did anything against Wikipedia policy. Lets discuss one by one...

Company Rule in India

Then, here we both may be wrong. Company rule ended in 1857. In earlier (or present article), there are images from 1871, 1897 etc. There is also a little of post-1857 information. Also though passenger train services started in 1853, freight railways were there from 1837. See Indian Railways#1832–1852:_Industrial_railways. Such an important development was/is missing from the article.

What i wish to do here is:

  • Add the industrial railways part to the article, so that article looks complete. Atleast intro-like details could be added.
  • Arrange the paragraphs chronologically.(If not already)
British Raj

As far as i believe, in these article, i removed statements duplicating same information. If you carefully see, same information is mentioned in reworded sentences.

What i wish to do here is:

  • Remove duplicated sentences.
  • Arrange the paragraphs chronologically.(If not already)


All i intend is to make these sections in these articles better. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Please update the above sections in the articles as per wikipedia policies.

Thanks.Punyaboy (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Punyaboy (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Company rule ended in 1858, when EIC was dissolved and the Crown rule began. (Please see the leads of both the Company rule in India page, and the British Raj page. In other words, it was the Company that suppressed the mutiny (by summer 1858). See Government of India Act 1858. The two maps were (i) the plan envisaged by Dalhousie 1853 superimposed on a railway map of 1907 (the map of relevance there is 1853, not the background of 1907, which is being used as a template), the second is the high-res color map of the House of Commons Railway Committee 1871. Then there were three pictures complementing the text, two from 1855 and one from 1854. Your black and white map has three issues: it is not definitively dated (to 1865), it is poorly made (compare it with the 1871 map), and it is not that different from the 1853 plan, nor really from the 1871 map. In other words, it is better to show the plan and also how it panned out nearly 20 years later. Unfortunately, the Indian Railways Fan Club is not a reliable source, so we can't use it to say things about the rudimentary trains employed by Arthur Cotton (South India) and Proby Cautley (Solani) in their respective irrigation works. I will go through the details of your edits tomorrow. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Coloured map

Why is the UAE and Yemen listed as "today apart of" when they aren't coloured in orange?  — Calvin999 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Raj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

English v. British or UK

British is not the same as English, and vice versa. The statement "The 1861 Census had revealed that the English population in India was 125,945". Now, I don't have access to the Census, but I would be very surprised if it distinguished the English from other UK Citizens (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish). Perhaps this could be investigated and corrected? The Scots in particular are well known for playing a significant role in Empire, alongside the English. Simhedges (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

GDP

"India's global share of GDP fell drastically from above 20% to less than 5% in the colonial period." - that's because during the colonial period is when much more of the world/globe was discovered. So of course India's share would fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. These figures by themselves are consistent with good growth in the Indian economy during the period. But at the beginning of the period places like Chicago and Detroit didn't appear on the map. Australia was only a rumour. Much more needs to be put in to make the figures informative. Seadowns (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
GDP measures what people produce, not real estate. So the acquisition of territory by itself doesn't have a bearing on the issue. So comparing the GDP share to population share would be better.
The idea that India had "good growth" in the colonial period is, well... mythology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Table Messed Up

Whenever I hide the table of contents, the table about "Major Provinces" really messes up the bottom part of the table. I wondered if there was any way to edit this. Fernsong (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Name, Motto and flags

Apparent from British posters, British Indian Passports and the Bengal Gazette, the Red Ensign flag was one of two official flags of British India, the other being the Flag of the Governor-General of India (the Union Jack defaced with the Star of India), as shown in this poster from the 1840s. The Red Ensign was used to represent India internationally, and the Flag of the Governor-General was flown everywhere within India. The Star of India was the Emblem, with the British Indian motto "Heaven's Light Our Guide" inscribed on it. It was chosen because they needed a neutral yet positive motto that didn't offend Hindu, Muslim or Christian faiths (also painting the image that the Empire was a guide for India). It was used on the seals of the Government of India, and the flags. My grandmother, who was born in 1939 in Madras and is still alive has confirmed these for me.

You'll need to find a reliable sourcesource that the flag of the governor general was also an official flag of the Raj. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: This poster I had pasted a link to is from the Bengal Gazette at the time. I have also asked my Grandmother who was born pre-independence and she recounted the Governor-General flag being more commonly used officially (although the Red Ensign was not uncommon ceremonially). Offices would use the Governor-General flag, while the red ensign was used for ceremonial hoisting and International representation. The blue ensign was used militarily. Also, the official name of the country was "British India" and not simply "India", as displayed on the passport. "Indian Empire" was a term used in the British Parliament (London) at the time, but not within India itself. So the common_name attribute should show "British India", just like . I'm sure "Heaven's Light Our Guide" was the Indian motto at the time because it appeared on several official seals and stamps (Google searching returns nothing though, but my grandmother can confirm again). Therefore, my two sources are a photo of a poster that was also printed on a Bengali newspaper (propaganda, I guess) and a person in my family from the Raj times. Do redo my edit if you find it alright.  :) -- 37x0f4x0 (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to note the flag in the poster you link to doesnt look like the Governor General's flag. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@37x0f4x0: the poster is just a poster and doesn't say anything about the status of the flags being displayed (a poster is not an official document) even given MilborneOne's comment above. And, unfortunately, your grandmother doesn't count as a reliable source (the way we define it on Wikipedia - not a comment on your grandmother's reliability!). --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On the country's regional name

India was never officially known as “Bharat” during the Raj period (pre-1947), it’s official regional name being “Hindustan” (हिंदुस्तान, ہندستان) in Hindi/Urdu (not used on paperwork). It was also shortened to "Hind". The use of the term "Bharat" became official post 1947, for example, Central India Agency being renamed "Madhya Bharat", and the Dominion of India becoming the Republic of India/"Bharat Ganarajya" in 1950. From the period from 1947-1950, the two new dominions for Hindus and Muslims were known as Hindustan and Pakistan respectively, until the Constitution of India was introduced.

Maps from various European travelers, banknotes from the Reserve Bank of India and also the official Imperial Gazetteer of India have never referred to India as "Bharat" on paperwork, instead using "Hindustan". During the Indian Independence movement, terms like "Jai Hind", songs like "Saare jahan se accha Hindustan hamara", the Azad Hind Army etc. never used the term Bharat. The name Bharat was chosen post Dominion period because the region of Greater India had historically been called Bharat-Varsha before Muslim invasion of India, and was also known as the same in the local languages (Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam etc.). "Hind", "Indus" and "Sind" all have similar names. Indus or Dariya-e-Sind (in Urdu) was the name used by the Indo-Greek rulers, Persians etc. When the region was Islamized, the name stuck. When the Delhi and Mughal Sultanates had Persian as an official language, the name carried over in suzerainty and was officially used by the British, French (Indoustan) and Portuguese (Índia). The use of the name Bharat later rose to give India it's Hindu identity by the Hindu Mahasabha.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.241.122 (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note, the official languages were English (not Indian English) and Persian/Urdu. See the silver rupees issued by all Emperors/Empresses of India. They have either only English, or English and the Persian script rendering of "Aik Rupya." Only in 1947, on the eve of decolonization and partition, does Hindi Devanagari gain mention. Adding anything more is to add useless bells and whistles and, in addition, to waste the time of people who have done the hard work of maintaining this page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We need some third party sources to back all of that up - at the moment its all original research and/or synthesis -----Snowded TALK 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying that the colonial government of India is not a reliable source of the colonial governance of India? Hindustan is a term you will come across almost every time you read about British India (as opposed to Bharat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.241.122 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is one source: Dalby, Andrew (1998), Dictionary of Languages: The Definitive Reference to More Than 400 Languages, Columbia University Press, pp. 248–, ISBN 978-0-231-11568-1
    • "(p. 248) In the government of northern India Persian ruled. Under the British Raj Persian eventually declined, but, the administration remaining largely Muslim, the role of Persian was taken not by Hindi but by Urdu, known to the British as Hindustani. It was only as the Hindu majority in India began to assert itself that Hindi came into its own." and also:
    • "(p. 495) Once more a language of government, under Mongolian and Turkish rulers, Persian was brought to Turkey, to central Asia and to India. It was the language of administration in India for hundreds of years — in Kashmir until after 1900. In the earlier period of British rule, Persian was still the most useful linguistic accomplishment for the British who were involved with the administration of India. Even in the 19th century the British in India learned Persian before, or in addition to, 'Hindustani' or Urdu. The Persian of India was by now a distinct variety, heavily influenced both by the Turkish of the old ruling class and by the Indian culture that surrounded it. Textbooks warned British students that this was not the language of Iran." I'm sure I can find many more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's another: Metcalf, Barbara D. (2014), Islamic Revival in British India: Deoband, 1860-1900, Princeton University Press, pp. 207–, ISBN 978-1-4008-5610-7
    • " (p. 207) The basis of that shift was the decision made by the government in 1837 to replace Persian as court language by the various vernaculars of the country. Urdu was identified as the regional vernacular in Bihar, Oudh, the North-Western Provinces, and Punjab, and hence was made the language of government across upper India. The indigenous impulse toward the cultivation of Urdu was thus stimulated by its official position and by government patronage. It was taught in the schools and encouraged by such methods as rewards for distinguished writing. Urdu was increasingly known by the entire service elite of the area, Hindu and Muslim alike. The language was, no doubt, understood by a broader section of the population than Persian had been. Nevertheless, only the educated knew Urdu in its most refined and subtle forms. Those Muslims and Hindus who shared the court culture of the region cherished Persianate forms of polite and formal discourse, just as they had cultivated those forms in Persian itself. A person had only to open his mouth to identify himself with that culture." Note North-Western Provinces + Oudh = what today is UP + Uttarakhand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Note Hindustan typically means Upper India, or India above the Vindhyas, east of the Sutlej and up to (but not including) the Bihar border, or in some versions, only up to Benares. I'm sure I could dig up a British source that says that. I've seen it often enough in the literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewording for clarification

Hi there-

Just skimming this article and thought it best to change the wording of the last sentence of the second introductory paragraph from:

"...gaining its own independence along with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) in 1948."

to something like

"...gaining its own independence, followed by Sri Lanka (Ceylon) in 1948."

Just to ensure there's zero confusion for anyone unfamiliar with the topic and skimming through.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chackaz (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that the sentence was confusing. I've removed the reference to Sri Lanka as unnecessary, hope it is clearer now. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Official name of British India

Every Act passed by the Parliament at Westminster for India between 1858-1947 has referred to it as India. The term British India is used to distinguish it from the Indian subcontinent and modern day India. These acts include:


The Government of India Acts of 1830, 1858, 1909, 1919, 1925, 1935

The Indian Councils Act 1861, 1892, 1909

The Indian Independence Act

...and many more.

Crown property in His/Her Majesty's name (delegated to the Viceroy) used the term Indian Empire, such as Flags, Passports, Armed Forces etc.

This situation is similar to the name of Canada. You can also look at the talk page there for clarification. Anonymousboii (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this page is not about British India, nor the infobox only about the "official name of British India." The page is about India under Crown Rule, the political union comprising British India and the Princely states. If you take the time to read the British Raj page, it cites the Imperial Gazetteer of India, to define what the British Parliament called it in legislation (see here), as well as its formal name in passports or knighthood orders. I should know I wrote the page. However, the gazetteer itself refers to the union as the "Indian Empire." More of relevance is modern usage. The Oxford English Dictionary 2013 defines it as: "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)." And they actually paid us a complement by taking the pre-existing Wikipedia definition. Also, as a redlinked new user, please read WP:BRD, rather than edit war. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Anonymousboii, I agree. This article should actually be moved to "British India" as that was the name of the entity, not the "British Raj". All the other articles about British colonies follow this convention, such as British North America, British Guiana, British Honduras, British Cameroons, British Mauritius, and the list goes on and on. I would recommend that you start a move discussion and if you do not, I probably will do so at a later date. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, the other examples never had a name generated by a specific event (proclamation of Vitoria) so the current name is properly referenced -----Snowded TALK 05:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Anonymousboii, no, that doesn't work, as Fowler&fowler says, British India was only part of India. The princely states were formally treated as foreign territories, and their inhabitants were not British subjects. They were looked on as part of the "Indian Empire", which had enough existence to have an emperor or empress, but not its own government, and yet there was a Chamber of Princes. Moving this page to British India would cause confusion. Snowded, what was created by the proclamation of Queen Victoria as Empress was surely the Indian Empire? Moonraker (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Transfer to the crown following the Indian Mutiny -----Snowded TALK 06:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
But you mean the transfer of British India to the Crown in 1858, the proclamation of the Indian Empire came much later. Moonraker (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes but the point was that India was treated differently - Victoria was never Empress of Mauritius for example. Ok there was opportunism in the title but it was the nexus point in a flow of events triggered by the mutiny. -----Snowded TALK 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking back more carefully, it was 1990'sguy I was disagreeing with. I agree with Anonymousboii but not if he is suggesting "India" and/or "British India" as names for the whole of this page. The first is in use for the present-day country, and "British India" is something different. Anonymousboii mentions the name Indian Empire, which is a redirect, and that would be fine for 1876 onwards but could not cover the years 1858 to 1876. Still, I do think a page for the Indian Empire, which is at least a geographical area, would be useful, to explain what it was and what it wasn't. Moonraker (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I see the issue to be one of interpreting the infobox arguments, "Conventional_long_name" and "common_name." There is little disagreement about the common name, which is India. The conventional long name is a little more complicated. As I say above, in British parliament legislation, the Raj (i.e. British India + Princely States) was referred to as "India." (See link to the relevant article section (and Imperial Gazetteer of India) above. I examined the other country- and former-country pages to determine any pattern or precedent. Here is what I gleaned:
Firstly, in most, the conventional long name is the formal name: United States (United States of America), Australia (Commonwealth of Australia), China (People's Republic of China). What about former countries? It is similar there. The infobox has the official, or formal, name: Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Austria-Hungary (Austro-Hungarian Empire), Ottoman Empire (Exalted Ottoman State), and so forth.
Secondly, the name used in legislation is not generally the conventional_long_name. For the UK, the name employed in acts of parliament is "United Kingdom" (see here), but the conventional_long_name in United Kingdom is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
So, I examined the title page of the Imperial Gazetteer of India (see here). The formal name there is "Indian Empire." I can see that in my collection as well.  :) Using "Indian Empire," i.e. without the "British" causes other issues, as you will see in these archives: there are other Indian empires (Maurya, Gupta, Mughal), so I used "British" as a disambiguator. This is an old page. Drive-byes, IPs, or red-linked newbies, have been coming to this article for years to fix the lead or the infobox. Way back in 2008, user:Nichalp the patron saint of India-related article told me, "turn it into an FA, otherwise, you will never be able to make it stable." I wish I had followed his advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, we’ll keep Indian Empire in the Infobox then. Also, why can’t both legislature houses be included? They don’t violate the WP:INFOBOX and are actually encouraged. They also have Wikipedia pages about them. And what about the flags for predecessor and successor states? Every Wikipedia article I’ve read about a former country has them, but @Fowler&fowler isn’t a fan of them, apparently.
Also, shouldn’t Hyderabad state be part of the successsors since it was independent for a brief period? Anonymousboii (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii:, a perfunctory post about your preference, which has now metamorphosed into "Indian empire," does not give you a talk page consensus. Please go back and change the conventional_long_name to "British Indian Empire" per Snowded's last edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: and @Snowded: As per the sources you’ve provided, I changed the “conventional_long_name” to Indian Empire. Nowhere in the sources does it say British Indian Empire. This shouldn’t cause confusion though, as the page is named British Raj and redirects both British Indian Empire and Indian Empire. I am merely following the correct Wikipedia convention. Please don’t mix personal sentiment into this, because this is for hundreds of millions of people to read, and we must only provide historical accounts. For further clarification on the name, the viewer can read the description, which explains it brilliantly. I also added successor flags of predecessors and successors, and houses of legislature, following almost every article on this website and WP:INFOBOX, which you dismissed as “bells and whistles”. Anonymousboii (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii: Hyderabad state was independent for a brief period? Was it recognized by any country (other than perhaps Pakistan) such as the United Kingdom, the US, the countries of Europe, Japan, China, ..., or by an international organization, such as the UN? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii: Please note that the upper and lower houses of the Imperial Legislative Council were created after the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919. They lasted less than 28 years in the 90 year old history of the Raj. You need to gain consensus here for toploading the article with it. Offering your reason alone is not consensus. Others have to weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead fixation

Will all the people who like to top-load the lead with words of make-or-break and now-or-never significance, please read WP:Lead fixation?

And speaking of lead fixations, some folk seem to have in fact a first paragraph fixation. That means it doesn't matter to them that what they have just added to the first paragraph is already there in the second paragraph.

This is an old page, a tired page. I know this might sound presumptuous, but pretty much every grand new idea you think you have has already be debated, analyzed, probed, poked, and mauled by a few before you. Please read the rest of the British Raj page, at least the first few sections, read some of the talk page archives, before unburdening your new idea in the first paragraph. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism, lock article?

Should this article be locked down? It seems like a few trolls, nationalists and anti-empire people constantly vandalize this article. Like so:

9 May 2019
3 February 2019
27 March 2018
30 January 2018
7 December 2017

There are obviously many more edits of the sort, some adding hilarious false events, some deleting the page and some replacing it with propaganda. I feel like British India is a widely discussed topic and should be locked down as they are prone to constant vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talk • contribs)

[Added dates to the diffs for context] No, I think we're okay. That's not too bad, actually. If you were to send this to WP:RFPP, it would surely be declined. El_C 03:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A few questions

  1. Why is English in the infobox not linked to the English language article?
  2. Why is the Battle of Plassey in the infobox when it has nothing to do with the Raj (the Raj was constituted in 1857, while the battle is from 1757)?
  3. Why does the Currency point to the modern Indian Rupee, instead of the British Indian Rupee?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talk • contribs) 07:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)‎
  4. Given that this page is about the Empire of India (including Princely States), doesn't it make more sense to add the Legislative Houses in the infobox, considering that the Council of State had members from princely states, that weren't part of British India? This was an exclusive right guaranteed to them. Why can't it be added and have the date of establishment in parentheses. I don't see it as "bells and whistles" at all, like it has been pointed out in the past.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1 - English related to language is never linked as this is English Wikipedia so it counts as being clearly obvious. MilborneOne (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
By this argument, the English language article shouldn't even exist. What about all the other current and former country articles that link to their respective languages?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousboii (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. you just have to accept that this is "English" wikipedia so no need to link to "English" language everywhere, the other country languages are not English. MilborneOne (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
In answer to point 3, the link you suggest redirects to an article about the coinage of British India, not about the currency. The link to Indian rupee is correct, as that article covers the rupee from the 1800s to the present day. DuncanHill (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymosboii: Please note that there is no consensus here for edits such as this on other WP pages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymosboii: Please also note there is no room in Wikipedia for intemperate edit summary language such as this. The Presidencies and provinces of British India is not a page about a ruling entity, only about geographical divisions from the time of the first trading posts in the early 17th century, which existed by permission of the ruling Indian monarchs. There was no colony then. You most definitely cannot use an incorrectly inferred consensus on this page, to wreak havoc on other pages. Please be warned. You are now in the realm of distruptive behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Map in infobox

I have changed the map from File:Map of British India.png (above) to File:British Empire 1921 IndianSubcontinent.png (below), which does not have the Thirteen Colonies fault someone had complained about by changing the caption. Moonraker (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Good catch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Emblem and Flag?

Why can Afghanistan, Nebraska, and British Burma have both an Emblem and a flag in the infobox, but not this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Anonymousboii (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not a relevant question. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you can come up with a good independent reason to add them to this article, please do that. --regentspark (comment) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
‎ Anonymousboii , that comment of yours is crappy. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: A word of advice: don't take these things as personal attacks. You were the one who removed the emblem without gaining talk page consensus. All I did was add it back, like it was for the past several years, and started a talk page discussion on why it should be removed. Also, I'm not adamant on adding the Star of India in particular, I just want there to be an official emblem in the infobox. If it has to be the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom instead of the Star of India, then we can talk about it here and add it if required. Anonymousboii (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Anonymousboii: Do you have any evidence that the "Star of India" was the emblem of the Raj, i.e. the Government of British India, and not simply the emblem of the Order of the Star of India, an order of knighthood, reserved for British officials in the Indian administration. I find if odd that I have hundreds of coins of the Raj (and the Company days) and none have the Star of India anywhere. I have all 26 volumes of the Imperial Gazetteer of India, the Star is absent there. It is similarly conspicuous by its absence on all paper currency of the Raj. It is conspicuous its absence on the British Indian Passport. It was absent on Mountbatten and Wavell's letterheads. Where the neck was it used? And what irrefutable reference do you have that makes you edit war in this consistently silly fashion? Indeed the same applies to that darned flag. Whose flag is it? It certainly wasn't the flag lowered over Indian public buildings on August 15, 1947. Again where are you getting this nonsense? There is an emblem on the British Indian passport, it is not the star of India. The flag that was lowered on the Viceregal Lodge in Delhi was the Union Jack, not the star of India.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

See the Union Jack flying over the Viceregal Palace, New Delhi, during Wavell's term as Viceroy at 3:29 mark on this British Pathe documentary I mean the viceroy was ruling the Indian Empire in the name of the Emperor of India (i.e. George the Sixth by Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, King, and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Defender of the Faith, and Emperor of India, his regnal title) do you think he would be flying any flag but the Union Jack? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean even the Viceroy's Assistant Private Secretary wasn't using that emblem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I should be offering solutions here. If you can get a clean copy of the British Indian passport logo It at least has a passing chance of being an emblem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It is the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, which is what I expected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
After all this, I just discovered there is a British Indian passport page, which says the same. The emblem on the passport is the coat of arms of the British monarch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii: But I forget myself that all this is inconclusive WP:OR. Bottom line: Please produce scholarly sources that state clearly that this or that is the emblem of the Raj. Here I am in consonance with @Drmies: and @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The flag that flew on top of the Viceroy's House (now Rashtrapati Bhavan) wasn't the normal Union Jack, but it was the flag of the Governor-General of India, which indeed had the Star of India on it. If you Google search, you can find several photos of this flag being used by government officials in uniform, posters etc. For example: | this photo, or even | this one, where the Star of India can clearly be seen on top. Also, I think [| this website] is a good source as they specify citations. According to the website, the Star of India Red Ensign was used to represent India internationally, so I think it is appropriate to use it in the infobox, as opposed to the Viceroy's flag.

@Anonymousboii: Those are not reliable sources by a stretch! However that flag is more like the kind of personal flag that would have flown atop the Viceregal Palace (during the Viceroy's presence in Delhi) or on the hood of his car when traveling. But we are talking about the Official Flag of the British Empire in India. The Wikipedia Star of India (flag) page says in its lead: "The official state flag for use on land was the Union Flag of the United Kingdom and it was this flag that was lowered on Independence Day in 1947." (Granted this page is not reliable either.) There are many references to the Union Jack being lowered in 1947 on the subcontinent, not a single one in my readings that say, "Star of India was lowered in 1947" I am seriously doubting the Star of India flag as well. You will need to produce some scholarly sources that state it was indeed the flag of the Raj. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

For the Viceroy's flag, here is Britannica 1910. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I completely agree that it was the Union Jack that was lowered, but how on earth are photos taken by a camera of a government official hoisting the Viceroy's flag not reliable sources? Another interesting thing I've noticed is that in |this video of the British Pathe youtube channel, titled "Last British Troops Leave India", you can clearly see a British Ensign with the Star of India ensign from 2:09 to 2:14. Although, I'm assuming that it's the blue ensign Star of India flag.
@Fowler&fowler: Also, what do you think about this picture I found? You can clearly see a British Union Jack with a circular insignia on the top of the dome. That has to be the Viceroy's flag.
@Anonymousboii: Like I said a picture, especially one without recognizable context, is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Besides, even if, for argument's sake I were to agree that it was indeed the Viceroy's personal flag, how does it become the official flag of the British Indian Empire. We certainly can't have the Viceroy's flag in the Raj infobox, just as (today) we can't have the Queen's flag in the infobox of the United Kingdom, though it can be flown at Balmoral when she is visiting. Let me be frank with you. You are wasting everyone's time by attempting to add unreliable bells and whistles to the infobox. Beyond a certain point such Wiki-behavior becomes disruptive, especially when there is edit-warring in addition. This is as far as I go. Provide reliable textual sources for the flag of the British Raj, or the flag too will be lowered on this page soon. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I apologize for wasting your valuable time, but you were the one who implied that I show some proof for the Star of India being somewhere, and I showed you a few photos and a video. I didn't do this to persuade you to put the Star of India there (could be the Coat of Arms of the UK, if appropriate). Also, since when is mature discussion and sharing of information a waste of time? Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? But if your delusion supersedes your common sense, that's not my problem. Regarding the edit-warring, I revert edits that remove/add things without going to the talk page first. When the Emblem was first removed from the infobox, it wasn't discussed here, so I added it back in hopes that consensus would be reached. Now that it has been reached (in quite a dismissive way), let it stay this way. Anonymousboii (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii: I don't see any evidence for the flag in textual sources. I will be adding a "citation needed" tag in the infobox, and failing the appearance of a scholarly citation, in short order, will be removing the flag as well. Whether or not another flag or emblem will be appropriate, is a separate question, requiring a separate discussion. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I'm assuming this book, this Victoria Collections 1945 flag from the Victoria State Government Museum, Australia, or this publication from IITGN isn't a good source along with the video footage and historical photographs? -Anonymousboii (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Regentspark: Why not link it to this article? -Anonymousboii (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anonymousboii: I'm afraid none are reliable. The first mentions the blue ensign, which was the Indian navy flag, not the red so-called flag of the Raj; the second is indeed red, but has a picture, accompanying which the web commentary suggests it was the flag of "British India," not the Raj, at international events. What international event took place in NZ in 1945, we are not told. The third is a sloppy piece of work which carelessly quotes from the book it cites, but the review of the same book says, "As with so much else in colonial India, the history proper of the Indian national flag begins with a handful of British men who first broached the need for a distinctive banner to represent India during the coronation ceremonies of Edward VII in 1903 in London (Chapter 1). Nothing much came out of this, ..." (See here) These references are flimsy. I can easily turn up references which say the same about the Union Jack being lowered all across the subcontinent on 15 August 1947.[1] Why was the Union Jack flying in the first place, if it was not the flag of the Raj? I think you are conflating some very special kind of flag (used either in ceremonies of the Order of the Star of India, or used infirmly and in ad hoc fashion, out of necessity, at some international events. At the Berlin Olympics of 1936, there is evidence that the Viceroy's flag, the Union Jack with Star of India at the center, was used. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick note about FOTW: Flags of the world (FOTW), of which crwflags.com is one of several mirrors, is a hobbyist project that compiles posts, comments, speculation and rumor posted on a related mailing list. The project's disclaimer itself says that The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website.
This makes it an unreliable and unusable source on wikipedia, although editors are welcome to refer to it to find citable sources such as WP:HISTRS-compliant books and articles. Unfortunately, the website has been used widely on wikipedia over the past 10+ years and that means that several of the fanciful flags that originated there have spread across the internet. So we need to be even more careful to look for solid references when working in this area to prevent citogenesis.
See also this RSN discussion where bobrayner summarized the problem well. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the Governor-General flag (which was shown in several pictures and videos[1] shown by both Fowler&fowler and Anonymousboii) and which is the flag used to represent India in events (as shown previously by the other users) and in for example various posters and propaganda: [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (last one is India in 1928 olympics, same flag for 1936 olympics has been linked above). Despite this officially being the flag of the Governor/Viceroy, it was the "unoffical flag" used to represent India since it otherwise had no official flag. The red ensign with the star was used a Merchant Ensign while the Blue one was the Naval Ensign and (later Naval Jack, when the UK White Ensign was allowed to be used in 1928). The Star outside of the flag being used as the "Emblem of India" seems unlikely, (although there seems to be a few examples of it being used in similar unofficial manner to represent India, such as here [11]) I would say the flags to be put in the infobox should be the "Governor Flag" (for previously mentioned reasons) and the "Red Ensign", since that was the regular merchant ensign for India (and which was also used to represent India as the "indian flag" sometimes[12][13][14][15] shown here in the context of Original members of the UN) These flags were the most commonly used to represent India in various circumstances, so should be included in the box. The infobox should be without any emblem though (unless the normal UK emblem is put there) --Havsjö (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure I agree. You see the problem is that the British Raj is not British India, which redirects to Presidencies and Provinces of British India. Rather, British Raj = British India + Princely states. The presidencies and provinces had their own flags. The princely states had their own flags. British India may or may not have had an official flag; however, the British Raj a federation of British ruled regions and Native ruled regions, almost certainly did not have a flag in the way that settler colonies such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand did. I'm sure the reason for not having one was much deliberated. The official flag that flew on public buildings was the British Union Jack. At India's independence day, it was that flag that was lowered across the subcontinent (as I've already observed) The flags that you have mentioned could possibly go into the British India page. However, I don't see that any princely state would have considered the red ensign, the blue ensign, or the Viceroy's flag, to be the flag of the empire to which they belonged, their membership vouchsafed by the British monarch, not as King, but as Empress or Emperor of India. This special relationship with the British sovereign was a big deal to all princely states. It was the same with the British Raj, India was the only colony for which the expression "Direct Rule" was used. The Viceroy was there, but India was ruled by the India Office, presided by a Cabinet member, the Secretary of State for India. It was the only overseas member of the empire which has such supervision. I'm pretty sure we cannot use any of the somewhat special use, or ad hoc, flags of British India to be the flag of the Raj. The only possibility is the Union Jack for the flag, and the monarch's coat of arms for the emblem (this latter was the emblem on all British Indian passports). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but despite all these administrative distinctions etc. When, say, an international event was held, such as the Olympic games/United Nations creation, or some other thing were flags are used/shown. What was used (even though it was never officially "the flag of India") to represent "India" alongside other countries flags, was the Viceroy flag or the Merchant ensign. So even though the reality of the situation can be explained on the Star of India Flag-page, for just a "quick overview" on the country-page, the commonly used flag(s) are shown. --Havsjö (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't really get this obsession with having a flag in the infobox. Unless there is a clear reliable source that unambiguously states the the official flag of the Raj (or of British India for that matter) was xyz, we should err on the side of exclusion. The sources listed above are all dubious (christmas cards, war fever posters, etc.). --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: I think you're missing the point. There is supposed to be *some* distinguishing mark for the Indian Empire, right? And aside from posters and propaganda (which I agree aren't exactly good sources because they're unofficial and tend to have biased nature), how are the videos from colonial India that I and @Havsjö: submitted not enough proof for a Union Jack with the Star of India actually existing? (which Fowler&fowler tried to dismiss entirely because of very little literature behind it) This one is on a Royal Indian Navy Boat, and this one shows it atop the Viceroy's House.Anonymousboii (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why there "has" to be a distinguishing mark. If there is a reliably sourced one, we can use that. If there isn't a reliably sourced one (and videos from colonial India are insufficient because they don't testify to consistent use and interpreting them as "official" is WP:OR) then we shouldn't add something just "because". --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I dont argue that those images are proof to be "officially" the "flag of India", rather, it is to show how commonly they were used as a sort of "unofficial" flag to represent India, both in war and peace time. Even in the proto-UN formation. --Havsjö (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus for the inclusion of these flags. As a longstanding contributor to this article,I have removed the flags until such time as we do. Please do not post your rationale here, howsoever convincing you find it, and then hurriedly add the flags again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: This seems like WP:OWN behaviour. Your contributions are appreciated but irrelevant in this context, unfortunately. I think there are some good arguments to add those flags. It wouldn't kill you or Wikipedia. Just saying. (talk page stalker) Regards, Guywan (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Guywan: Please read WP:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. If you have sources of the quality and rigor of those in the Bibliography, that in addition unambiguously state the flag of the Indian Empire to be one or other, please present that source. Thus far, I haven't seen any. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC) PS I mean there are nearly 40 text-books or surveys in the Bibliography, written by some of the best-known historians of Colonial India, such as Anthony Low, Eric Stokes, Christopher Bayly, Judith M. Brown, Sugata Bose, Thomas R. Metcalf, Barbara D. Metcalf, Percival Spear and others, not a single book has any mention of a flag (to my knowledge). That counts for something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: For fear of giving you an aneurysm, I'll take your word for it :) Do you think this falls under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Entities_without_flags_until_after_a_certain_point_in_time?Regards, Guywan (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Guywan: :) Yes, very much. Thank you. Minor note: the subnational should be replaced by supranational in this context. Other considerations are: WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and ironically WP:FLAGPLACEHOLDER (the text, which in the old days constituted a cogent textual picture of the subject is today more like this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:@Guywan: But nobody is arguing that there is an official "Flag of the Indian Empire". It has been said there is not one and the argument for the (now removed) flags is not that they were officially the "flag of the indian empire", but in real-life, very obviously, with ample proof provided in many different contexts in many different years, the de-facto flag(s) to represent India alongside other countries when flags are used. For this reason, its absolutely not misleading to include these, especially since the caption for the flags were their official purpose (civil ensign/flag of the viceroy), so its not even claimed to be "the official flag of india". Just showing the flags which were commonly used to represent India in history. They should definately be restored --Havsjö (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö: I'm sorry there is no precedent for this on Wikipedia. The modern Indian civil ensign is not included in the India page infobox, not is the President of India's flag. The same as I've already observed is true for the United Kingdom page. The British civil ensign or the Queen's flag are not in its infobox. There is already a page, Star of India (flag) edited recently by you, where the ensign makes an appearance. That, I believe, is plenty. Accordingly I have also removed WP:OR introduced by Londonboy2002 (talk · contribs) and furthered by Anonymousboii (talk · contribs), in the Crown colony page, where the ensign was erroneously added. India was never a crown colony. The classic division of the British Empire was: UK, Dominions, Crown Colonies, and India. Also pinging @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Austria-Hungary has its common civil ensign on its page due to there not being a common national flag. Your example of UK (and modern India) is strange, UK has a national flag, so it would ofc not need to show the others(?), India didnt (as all agree on), so the situation is not the same. Since the viceroy-flag (and civil ensign) are official flags (note: not "official national flags") and has been proven, in many different contexts and years, to have been used to represent India alongside other countries flags, it should be put here, since thats the closest thing it had to a flag and was used basically as such historically when a flag was "needed", such as in international events etc with flags.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29] etc--Havsjö (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Havsjö: On a separate note, if those pictures are in the open domain (it shouldn't be a problem if they're more than 100 years old and the author is dead, or is part of public property), would you mind adding one or two to the Star of India (flag) article's gallery?
Anonymousboii (talk · contribs) Please take this discussion to the Star of India (flag) page. And please sign your posts. No flag is going in here. Trust me, I know the history of the Raj, you do not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) We've long established that. Who asked to put a flag in the infobox? I just asked @Havsjö: to contribute to the flag article, I never said that I wanted it in the infobox, especially after the lengthy discussion we've had after which we all agreed upon. Also, what reason do I have to blindly "trust" you rather than my scholarly citations? Were you born before the 1930s or are an author of a bestseller book on the Indian Empire that I can read? I can make that exact same argument and tell you to trust me. -- friendlyneighborhoodanon 20:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Havsjö:, it is incumbent on you to explain why we must have a flag at all. There is no requirement that we use a flag and, from the MOS, Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all, and where one is genuinely needed, use the historically accurate flag. So, you need to explain why we genuinely need a flag and provide reliable sources (please do not list a bunch of pictures) that certify that the flag is historically accurate. --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hackett, Paul G. (2012), Theos Bernard, the White Lama: Tibet, Yoga, and American Religious Life, Columbia University Press, pp. 363–, ISBN 978-0-231-53037-8

Hi, I found a source from 1917 (around the time of the Raj), stating that the Flag of the Viceroy was also the flag of British India.: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43923783?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ✘ anonymousвهii 08:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

A one hundred year-old transcript of a speech by so-and-so BA to the Women's Patriotic Association in Canada is not a reliable secondary source. Rather, it is a primary source, more about Canadian patriotism than British India. Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:ONUS. Before all that, however, you need to answer to the question posed by @RegentsPark: above: "it is incumbent on you to explain why we must have a flag at all." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The same could be said for any country article, why does any article "need" a flag? If it has an officially defined flag (in this case, civil flag), and it was internationally recognized and commonly used, why should this flag not be included in the article naturally with the correct designation of "civil ensign"? Creating absolutely no ambiguity or confusion regarding its status as there would be no mislabeling (e.g. "Flag of India"). It would only be the inclusion of this common, official (as a civil flag) flag used in many different contexts, both wartime and peacetime, over many different periods of times. But since this is so WP:OWNed, I guess its pointless to further try to include the flag(s). --Havsjö (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Do_not_rewrite_history. The flag of India has clear support in the reliable sources. The flag of the Raj does not. The Raj, or "direct rule of India," which means actual day-to-day administration of British India (formerly administered by the East India Company) and indirect rule of the princely states, was created after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a reaction, in part, to the high-handedness displayed by the Company, and accompanied by personal guarantees and a display of sensitivity to past wrongs, by Queen Victoria (see File:Image_victoria_proclamation1858c.JPG). That is one of the reasons why a flag was never clarified. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we use the Union jack instead? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
As RegentsPark has already stated, we don't have reliably sourced evidence for any flag of the Raj. The Raj was the a loose union of British India and the Princely states. The Union Jack was certainly not flown in the Princely states; that rules out 45% of the Raj. Even in British India, outside of rarefied enclaves of British power, the Union Jack was not flown, not in government high schools or colleges, not in local courts, not in places where Indians lived by the millions. In what sense would it be the flag of the Raj. The British were smart enough to never make that claim outright. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Status of British Raj

Did the British Raj have a similar status to dominions? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Davi Gamer: I'm posting here something I had posted on the Talk:Crown colony page: From: Mark Doyle (2018), The British Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes], ABC-CLIO, pp. 82–, ISBN 978-1-4408-4198-9

"During the 19th century, many colonies formed by chartered companies increasingly ceded their control to the British Crown. In the second half of the century, the term "Crown colony" could be used to refer to almost all British colonies not granted "Dominion" status (except for those still run by a chartered company). In 1867 Canada became the British Empire's first official Dominion, with an elected Canadian government acquiring wide-ranging control over domestic affairs. Although Dominions usually retained both the monarchy, represented by a governor-general and, until the 1931 Statute of Westminster, a British-led foreign policy, the level of internal self-government was what marked Dominions out from the Crown colonies. If one excludes the Dominions and chartered companies, then the only other colony that was not considered a crown colony was British India, which was governed separately after the 1858 India Act via its own department of state in London. "

Informally, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first of the 20th, the divisions of the British empire were: (a) United Kingdom, (b) the dominions (Canada, Australia, ...), (c) the Crown colonies (such as Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) or Trinidad), and (d) India (more formally the Indian Empire). In India, which was governed by a British cabinet department, the India Office, and a cabinet appointment, Secretary of State for India, the autonomy was gradually formalized, always more than that of a crown colony, but never reaching that of a dominion. In fact, during the negotiations before WW2, dominion status after the war was an important discussion point. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Please also read the last two or three sentences of the lead of the Indian rebellion of 1857 page, and the sources cited therein, including the footnotes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
yes--and also note that (more formally the Indian Empire is not true. the term "Indian Empire" was always informal and never officially adopted by Parliament. Likewise "Raj" Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Flag of the Maratha Empire

I just added the flag of the Maratha empire into this article, but it looks like there is some problem. Someone please rectify it, I am new here and can't do it myself!-Spasiba5 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Captured Flag of the Maratha Empire.svg doesnt appear to exist, have you the correct name ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: I don't know how to get the flag to be shown here, but the Maratha Empire article has the flag—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I now understand that this is not relevant anyhow so no need to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The Company rule in India article mentions that Empire, so should it not be mentioned here also?—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Maratha Empire is not a precursor state of the British Raj, which came into existence in 1858, upon the dissolution both of the East India Company and the Mughal Empire. ( The Marathas were defeated in the Battle of Patparganj, Delhi, in 1803, or if you want to be a stickler, definitively in the Third Anglo-Maratha War, by the forces of the East India Company. Therefore Company rule in India is the precursor state page. It can be piped: [[Company rule in India|East India Company]] if you'd like. The Marathas would be precursors in the Company's page, not here. But per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, no flags in either infobox.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry @Spasiba5:, princely states were not precursor states either; they had all already established subsidiary alliances with the Company. Company rule in India, in that sense, was a loose-knit empire of Company-ruled regions and of those princely states indirectly ruled by the Company. Next time, please establish a consensus for you edits on this page first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Macaulayism

It is wrong to call Macaulayism a, "civilising mission" and I just replaced the inappropriate term. If it is removed again, I will post in the, "India related" group to re-insert the appropriate term and that could lead to an edit war, so please don't remove it!—Spasiba5 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I already changed it in this edit of 14:59 to more neutral terms. I think the "Civilizing Mission" was meant ironically, not literally. However, it is gone now. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me though what Macaulayism tells us about education in India during the British Raj? In your words, not copy and paste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Improvements

How is adding the official British Raj flag and coat of arms not a improvement? Pls look at other British colonies and your see that they also have their flag and coat of arms on their pages too.BigRed606 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ps until you give a reasonable answer I will restore my editBigRed606 (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Flag

just a quick question but why doesn't this page have the flag and seal of the Raj? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scu ba (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Partly because the flag and seal are both uncertain and reliable sources cannot be found but also because WP:INFOBOXFLAG.--regentspark (comment) 15:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Flag, Coat of Arms and modern Map needs to be added - agreement with other users

The British Raj, as part of the Empire, made regular use of the Red Ensign with the Star of India (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/British_Raj_Red_Ensign.svg/1280px-British_Raj_Red_Ensign.svg.png), the Red ensign was used widely as within India to represent the Raj as well as internationally.


Many other language versions of the article also make use of the flag.


The coat of Arms is widely accepted as the Star of India (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Star-of-India-gold-centre.svg/220px-Star-of-India-gold-centre.svg.png).


Please see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_India_(flag) for more information as there is indeed wide consensus and other language versions....

Claims that there was no flag or coat of arms for more than 100 years of British rule is very confusing.... It was adopted in 1880 and used repeatedly especially in Declaration by United Nations during World War II.

e.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Somerset-flag.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/United_Nations_Fight_for_Freedom_poster.jpg



Also...

There are better maps available using Wikipedia's modern map showing the extent of the Empire, we need to show this more clearly rather than using 100 year old maps (again like other language versions)

Partly because the flag and seal are both uncertain and reliable sources cannot be found that unequivocally state that these were official, we can't use them. Also see WP:INFOBOXFLAG. The english language wikipedia is an encyclopedia that prioritizes being right and requires reliable sourcing for everything. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


We don't use WP:INFOBOXFLAG for all former nations. Please have a read through the links provided, it was used widespread for more than 100 years of British rule. There are whole wikipedia pages which I have linked for your convenience which discusses the history and use of these seals and flags AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as evidence for inclusion on wikipedia (as should be obvious). Please provide reliable sources that unequivocally support the use of the flag and the seal. --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I know you as the user here are very much against the idea. But you must consider that an entire page on Wikipedia regarding its flag and coat of arms also has sources supporting the flag throughout its long history in British India.

Sources strongly supporting this fact: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

1) E.g. History on a Book of Flags where I have highlighted for you the Star of India (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=754NAQAAMAAJ&dq=star+of+india+flag&q=%22star+of+india%22&redir_esc=y)

2) Use by the United Nations fight for Freedom (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/United_Nations_Fight_for_Freedom_poster.jpg)

3) 8th/13th Victorian Mounted Rifles Collection = Museums Victoria, Victorian State Government. 14 Dec 2017. (https://victoriancollections.net.au/items/5a31122a21ea670f0cbbc11b)

4) "FLAGS OF THE BRITISH RAJ AND INDIAN PRINCELY STATES" War Flags Glossary 7 Feb 1999 (http://tmg110.tripod.com/braj_flags.htm)

Please also have a look on the multitude of sources listed there as well. It isn't a joke site either. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This is all your opinion - get some reliable third part support -----Snowded TALK 15:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian Empire as official name

According to the text, "The whole was never officially called the Indian Empire, only informally." The source given for this does not actually say that the name was informal, and it is not clear why the article would make this claim. The term Indian Empire was used in parliament [30], on maps, as this article itself shows in the infobox, on passports [31] (see British Indian passport), and in the honours sytem [32]. Stroganoff (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you will see if you trawl through the talk page, other names were also used. The consensus here is to use India and you'll need to change that consensus before you can change the long name in the article. You'll need reliable sources that say what the long name was, not just quote a few examples (that would be WP:OR)--regentspark (comment) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Entirely agree with RegentsPark. As for your first citation, Stroganoff, the British Raj, another name for Crown rule in India, or Direct rule of India, was instituted in 1858. Victoria was not (somewhat cynically) crowned Empress of India by Disraeli until 1876; he was also attempting to flatter her into writing a novel. Macaulay whose ringing prose I was in awe of for much of my early youth, and by which I still find myself intermittently awestruck, made that speech in 1833; he was referring to Company rule in India. He certainly was using that term loosely, or rather optimistically. For in 1833, British India had only the Ceded and Conquered Provinces in the north, and the subsidiary alliances that bespeak intentions of even an informal empire were not all ironed out. We've had this discussion many times before. Rjensen might have something to say on this. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree. The actual passports never used "India Empire" -- but the some leather holders of the passport did get an "empire" embossment --added without auhorization of the India Office or Parliament. Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source that can back up the claim currently in the lead? "The region as a whole was never officially referred to as the Indian Empire." The given quotation from the cited source appears to directly contradict the claim; it reads "British India, meanwhile, was itself the powerful 'metropolis' of its own colonial empire, 'the Indian empire'." I had edited the claim to match the source, but my revision was reverted. For now, I have added a {{failed verification}} tag to the claim, but if the claim should stay, then either a source that supports the claim needs to be cited, or a compelling reason needs to be provided for why Wikipedia:Verifiability should not apply in this case.

Ping User:Fowler&fowler, User:RegentsPark, User:Rjensen, User:Stroganoff.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2020

2600:1012:B107:833E:5410:23ED:BB9C:41AB (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) It needs show flags and the anthem “God Save the King/Queen”.
 Not done. Per our WP:INFOBOXFLAG policy, we don't show flags. Also, it is uncertain what flag was associated with the British Raj, and we only include content that is verifiable and reliably sourced. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Where did lord and lady Mountbatten stay during indias partition? Hello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.41.133 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This talk page is not really a general-purpose chat group for information on the Raj, only one for posts about improvements to the British Raj page on Wikipedia, but since you've asked an interesting question, here goes: They lived at the Viceregal Palace in New Delhi (now the Rashtrapati Bhawan) from the time they arrived in India in early 1947 until they left in mid-1948. They traveled to Pakistan to be present at the nation's independence day ceremony on 14 August 1947 and returned to Delhi, where after the independence day ceremony on the midnight of 15 August 1947 Mountbatten became the first Governor-General of independent India. Lady M. was active in refugee relief during the Partition of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Raj/Archive_9&oldid=1088792407"