Jump to content

Talk:Robert Clive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vandalism

Hey I just cleaned up some vandalism that completely destroyed the "early life" discussion. I'd watch out for a repeat offence. Sbfenian1916 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Early Comments

Parts of this article sounds imperialistic: ...and as a statesman, since retreat, or even delay, would have put back the civilization of India for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.79.196 (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

    • As with all the Empire-related articles quoting extensively from the 1911 Britannica, it editorialises in tone and in content. I intend to clean it up sometime in the immediate future.

Hornplease 07:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a major rewrite, possibly from scratch. It sounds like British propaganda, talking about Indians as "natives" and using arcane objectionable terms. Not surprising, it is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittannica, which was during the colonial times. --Ragib 29 June 2005 19:31 (UTC)
Feel free to alter the article yourself if you see any errors. Bastie 16:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute on the Language in this Article

I thought no one would glorifies colonial past anymore. No one in right mind, writing about these events would write words like villains, Mohemmadans (condesending slangs for Muslims) etc. This certainly is a language that *no one* uses anymore.


I Agree. The reason of this "weird" language in the article is because someone grabbed the text from the 1911 Brittanica, which glorifies the "British Raj". A massive rewrite of the article is needed. --Ragib 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica is a historical document, which presents us with a facts colored by the spirit of the time. To judge its language by our standards is, at least, an anachronysm.


Did it occur to anyone to simply make note of the natural biases of Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911? I mean, it's not that difficult. Better yet, you could simply use an elipsis or two to cut out the more blatant editorialization.Nullius in Verba 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is we today who are biased, we are against the British Empire these days it seems, and it seems as if you are considered bad for liking the Empire and recognising it's contributions...

I agree, the contributions of the British Raj was undeniable, and the PC attitudes of today's readers is sickening when you consider that it was only the British Raj that allowed India to emerge as a united nation in the first place, by which time the Raj had become obselete, leading to today's foolish derogative remarks about it. The comments made about Mohammedans and other comments like 'natives' should be seen as they are, a insight into the beliefs of a culture long since past, which inevitably had both good points and bad.

That may be correct, but we need to work on *this* article. Now, I'm not saying that the 1911 encyclopedia was by itself wrong, but using arcane language and expressions from it to build this article completely, won't be correct. The wordings like "Natives", "Mohammedans" etc. are fine when we read it in the 1911 encyclopedia, but using them here would be like perpetuating the obsolete expressions. Thanks. --Ragib 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree. This is not the place for a debate about the merits or otherwise of empire or rants about PC. The fact is that this article reads like it was written 100 years ago (and it pretty much was). It is in serious need of updating. I would hope to find time to contribute myself but have yet to do so. --Richard Clegg 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean that 'contributions were undeniable' (since it is just an unsubstantiated proposition I can very much say that British sucked life out of people) or 'British Raj that allowed India to emerge as a united nation in the first place'. I thought that British created partition on the basis of religion: There was nothing as Pakistan before Raj. I also find is sickening that someone can a find anything good with Raj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.158.35 (talk • contribs)

And that just demonstrates a lack of empathy and neutrality. There were even a (very) few good things in the African Slave Trade (although there were many, many more bad things than good) - to find sickening that people can find anything good with the Raj is to be sickened by your own lack of knowledge and empathy. As for the partition with Pakistan, it was more or less founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his demands that Muslims got equal seats to Hindus - and that the Muslim League (with him as head) would allocate the Muslim seats. (Gandhi would have gone along with the first but the second was right out.)

The myth that the British Empire "united" India for the first time has been widely discredited.

History cannot be altered for the sake of political correctness. It would be wrong to undermine Lord Clive's contributions to the East India Company and to India.The British Empire created what we know as India aand the East India Company's role in uniting the provinces in pre-imperial India was undeniable-Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.226.91 (talk) 11:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite

I think a lot of people agree that this article needs a complete rewrite. Clive is such an important topic and his influence on Indian and British history is major but I hope none of the contributors will mind me saying that this article really needs attention badly. I don't feel enough of an expert on the subject myself but I hope nobody will be offended by my tagging it for a complete rewrite -- this is not intended to reflect on any particular contributor so far. The reasons I believe it needs a rewrite are:

  • Heavy use of 1911 Britannica with inappropriate tone.
  • Poor structure of page.
  • Lack of appreciation of historical context from a modern perspective.

--Richard Clegg 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The tone of the 1911 encyclopedia is inherently POV. Clive is an important character in history, he is hated, ridiculed in India and Bangladesh, but perhaps he was the founder of the British Raj. Right now the page is a big mess, which is difficult to clean up. A rewrite from scratch with proper citations seem to be the best way. Thanks. --Ragib 18:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article as it stands must go but I agree that POV will be very tricky. I did not realise Clive was so disliked in India though I can quite understand why. I think we must be careful that this article remains an article about Clive's life and not the rights and wrongs of the Raj. He is an important historical character and deserves a better article. Unfortunately I have no reference books directly about Clive though I can find some material in recent histories of the British Empire and the East India Company (though of course I must be careful about the point of view of these). --Richard Clegg 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


I created a temp page at Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive/temp, with blank sections. You can start working on that. --Ragib 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I DISAGREE. Much of what you find 'offensive' is actually your own bias, Ragib. "Native" simply means people that were 'native' to the land; i.e. inhabitants before the 'immigrants' arrived. "Mohammedan," while arcaic, means "Muslims." There is nothing derogatory about either of these terms. And, while statements supporting the 'civilizing mission' ideology need to be scaled back, they should not be done so at the expense of the historic record. For example, if we said "the British bandit Robert Clive barbarically invaded India," well that would be spinning in the other direction. Like it or no, Clive was just the top of a large bureaucracy that, without him, probably would have succeeded in the conquest of India anyway. 70.89.83.190 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I'm not terming Clive as a "Bandit" or otherwise, contrary to your fertile imagination. Rather, the patronizing, hero-worshipping tone of the article is the main thing I am against. It is not surprising to have such a tone from a 1911 encyclopedia. Of course, "Native" is an offensive term, based on the context it is used. Mohammedan is an archaic word which is no longer used. The article in its current state is unsalvagable, and it is better to write it from scratch with proper citations. I want to make one thing clear again, contrary to your "guesswork", it is not my intention to make Clive a "British Bandit". But the article in its current state is rather written from a British colonial perspective, which is not NPOV in any way. I'm biased of course, but that bias is towards having an NPOV article, not toward maligning anything. Thanks. --Ragib 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must agree with Ragib. The word "native" rightly or wrongly carries a certain image for some people. This is an encyclopedia article and we must strive towards a good article which describes who Clive was and what he did without making moral judgements in either direction. Nobody is suggesting describing Clive as a bandit. If terms are archaic we must replace them with modern terms. It is this kind of conflict that I hope we can avoid with a modern rewrite of this article which is at the moment based on something written for a British encyclopedia nearly 100 years ago. --Richard Clegg 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually think the article in its current form contains too much useful information to be completely re-written, so I am removing the re-write tag. The lengthy quotes from Macaulay should perhaps be cut (I will reference them and leave them for the time being) although they are classics of Historical writing. I have done my best to remove the more objectionable phrases and give a more neutral POV, but more needs to be done. Sikandarji 08:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake about Tipu Sultan, Sikandarji, well caught, it was very careless of me. I've moved the piece around so that the part about Indian history comes before Clive goes to India. I think it looks better there. I added some wiki links and more information (please try to catch anything I've got wrong). I also changed a couple of things I thought were not NPOV -- I hope you will not be offended. I think "influence" is more neutral than "interfere". --Richard Clegg 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


I think that I'd rather make do with what the learned authors of the 1911 Britannica had to say than the half-baked opinions of 16-year-old high school students and net nerds with an interest in history. I really doubt that any community alteration will improve the content here. Most changes are likely to be anachronistic revisions designed to paint the british as evil imperial villains oppressing the poor natives of bongo bongo land.--Corinthian 20:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To Do

I think there's a lot which needs doing to this article. I've made a start. Hopefully lots of others will join in. This is an important article.

  1. Language needs attention. There's a lot of this article expressing one or other POV. We ought to strive to state the facts and let the reader judge. This is difficult with such a controversial figure. If we say what happened and what Clive did in the most neutral language we can then people can make up their own mind.
  2. Huge bodies of text. There's a huge block quote from Macaulay here, I think that is inappropriate.
  3. Pictures. We need some more. Any contemporary portraits of Clive which we can scan in should be under fair use (the artist will certainly be dead).
  4. References. The article is really bad here -- almost nothing is referenced.
  5. Get rid of 1911 Britannica passages -- we want to lose that "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." tag I think.

Any other opinions? Hopefully we can work together to make this a really good article. (Having said taht, I'm going to be away for a few days but I hope to contribute more soon). --Richard Clegg 23:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of a soft spot for both the 1911 Britannica and Macaulay (such portentous prose) so I can't quite bring myself to wield the knife (also we do risk losing a lot of very detailed info). However I appreciate that much of it is far from being NPOV, and given that we can't change the quotations from Macaulay (I've checked them against the original text to ensure they are accurate) they may have to be axed. Sikandarji 23:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Compeletely agree that the prose style is great -- as I suggested on my talk page, perhaps chop it down using elipsis and keep some choice phrases (that part about the Tenth Legion?) to give people a flavour of the writing? --Richard Clegg 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
OK -- I've pushed things further a bit more and chopped down that Macauley quote to be a bit more manageable while hopefully clarifying what actually happened. I've also tried to reorganised some of the information into a more logical order. I hope that someone knowledgeable about the history will verify my changes. Please feel to disagree with anything or make changes you prefer. --Richard Clegg 16:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Journey to India

OK -- I've pushed on with this and tackled the start of his second journey to India. I hope people find my language an improvement -- I've also corrected some parts which I think were incorrect (Deputy Governor, not Governor). I've tried to present the facts neutrally. My main source was John Kaey's book that I cite. Estimates of forces are contemporary and I state that they may be overestimates simply because that would be a tendancy. I have cut down the section on the Black Hole of Calcutta -- there is no need to go into how many were killed in this article since the interested reader can read the article itself. I hope what I have said about it is uncontestable (I do not have the Busteed reference). I have also removed some of the history of Calcutta (this is not the place to talk about Job Charnock, interesting as he is.

I have tried not to make statements which would either glorify or vilify Clive. (The reason I mention his refusal to take treasure after Fort St. David is that at the time and for some time afterwards, in Britain, Clive was criticised for being a profiteer and that will be addressed later in the article when I get to editing that). Please feel free to edit as you see fit. --Richard Clegg 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added the weasel tag .Bharatveer 09:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume that this is to do with a later section and not related to the earlier Second Journey to India section which has been worked on? The article is gradually being revised. I've got as far as "War with Siraj ud-Daula" though the "Early life" section also needs work. Assistance would be appreciated. --Richard Clegg 13:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please remove "In general, however, the state of Bengal under Clive's administration after Plassey was a wretched one, as the Company sought to extract the maximum revenue possible from the peasantry to fund military campaigns, and corruption was widespread amongst Company officials, whilst Mir Jafar was also compelled to extortions on a vast scale in order to replenish his treasury, so efficiently emptied by Clive." or cite references to prove it is true. Ditto "Macaulay's ringing endorsement of Clive seems ludicrous today, as Bengal suffered from appalling exactions and famine under his rule and that of his immediate successors; his own ambition and desire for personal gain set the tone for the administration of the province until the Permanent Settlement 30 years later, as Bengal's unhappy peasantry were bled dry by the corrupt exactions of Company Officials and Zamindars." - 86.130.233.183 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the article is gradually being improved... but it is a slow process. Please do feel free to help out by making changes, particularly cited ones. On Wikipedia, anyone can be an editor. --Richard Clegg 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ExpertVerify Tag

The article appears much improve, hence the new tag. Some citations would be nice and some more facts. Otherwise I see no reason for cleanup any longer

I hope you don't mind me putting the old clean-up tag back. The first half of the article has been cleaned up considerably but from "War with Siraj ud-Daula" on it needs considerable attention which I have been too busy to work on myself as yet. If you read the second half of the article you will see that it still needs an awful lot of work. --Richard Clegg 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Just changed it to { {Cleanup-remainder|June 2006} }. It seems more appropriate. --meatclerk 19:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignorant and Offensive Political Correctness.

'Parts of this article sounds imperialistic: '...and as a statesman, since retreat, or even delay, would have put back the civilization of India for years;'since it is just an unsubstantiated proposition I can very much say that British sucked life out of people';'I also find is sickening that someone can a find anything good with Raj'

I think I can probably find something good about the raj, how about this? Without the British Empire, the modern Indian nation would very likely not exist; the area probably would have been subjugated by a Japanese dictatorship since 1940, and it is incredibly likely that democracy would not flourish there. What is more, had the British not colonised India, the French or Portuguese would have, in which case, the attainment of Indian independence would probably have been an even bloodier affair than it was in Indochina, and Angola! In summary, India, and the numerous gangs of politically correct (and usually historically incorrect) thugs have a few quite significant things to thank Great Britain and Her Empire for, along with men like Robert Clive, and the Duke of Wellington(regardless of their motives), who made the aforementioned possible.

Comment added by User:DHR1815

I think it a waste of everyone's time to get into the pros and cons of the British empire here -- we should just try to get a factually correct and NPOV article about Clive himself. Parts of this article (particularly the later part) are archaic and misleading. --Richard Clegg 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Even to his contemporaries Clive was a very controversial figure. This is not just a matter of retrospective political correctness. Sikandarji 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is absolutely true and the article should certainly reflect this status. While, at the time, some admired him as a great general others saw him as greedy or corrupt. However, assertions about this should be well-sourced. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to work on this article lately.--Richard Clegg 10:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Political correctness,these days looks like anything that contradicts the "white man's burden" is PC. Robert Clive ruined a once thriving Bengal economy and lead to the 1770-1773 famine of Bengal. I DO NOT see how Clive can be viewed as positive by anyone. On the contrary it was the loot from the colonies primarily India (India,Pakistan and Bangladesh) that transformed Britain from a poor third world country to a leading power,how is that for un-PC. Non-PC can cut both ways. We have nothing to thank the British Empire for, other than looting us dry. Any case even if Japan had annexed India in 1940,5 years of Japanese domination would be nowhere as destructive as 200 years of British misrule. I can even argue in a non-PC manner that the present immigrants from South Asia and Carribean give Britain a moral compass that it lacks. So please quit trying to argue as to the greatness of British Rule

If you genuinely believe these things to be historical facts rather than your own political opiniopns coloured by your nationalist convictions, then I recommen you cite some credible sources and then show how they attach not only to the life of Robert Clive but also to this very discussion. 90.197.233.36 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First, prove that Bengal was thriving, and give a citation for a reputable source. Second, offer some evidence that "loot" transformed Britain. As for the accusation of "looting dry" this is simply rhetoric, not an honest, historically based attempt to discuss the issue. I won't waste time on the idiocy of arguing about a hypothetical 5 years of Japanese rule. As for Britain's moral compass, your claims are far more racist than anything said about Clive.

Too true; See reply to post here; Talk:Burma_Campaign#Defense_of_Indian_Homeland. The anti-brigade all like to point out how 'hated' the British were, yet the British never seemed to have any trouble getting 'natives' to fight for the Empire. Despite what the critics like to believe, the British were by no means disliked generally in India, or for that matter elsewhere within the 'colonies', on the contrary, for most of our intertwined history, relations were good. And there were many home-born British - at least the 'educated' ones - who loved India as much as any Indian. My grandfather was one, and he was proud of his time in India pre-WW II. My mother was born there. My grandfather later fought the Japanese in Burma with the Lancashire Fusiliers defending both Burma and India and gave his life for both in 1944. He is buried in New Delhi Commonwealth War Graves Commission's cemetery. Many decent Indians of all races and religions also died for the same purpose. Luckily he never knew that his (and many other's) lives were basically wasted, as if the average Indian has the same views and ignorant bigoted opinions as the critics, then all I can say is that perhaps we should have just let the Japanese keep all the parts of the Empire they took in 1942-43. I'm sure the average Indian would have just loved the Japanese occupation of India, all he needed to do was ask the average Malayan, Singaporean, Hong Konger, or Burman, what that experience was like. Most welcomed the British back in 1945 with open arms, celebrations and parades.
The British Empire aroused much jealousy and envy amongst other nations, and so perhaps it is to be expected that there are many who would denigrate it. In addition, not all the inhabitants of the home or overseas countries benefited, but then again, these were usually the sort of people who wouldn't have benefited under anyone's rule. There are always some. However, whether the critics like it or not, the world would be a very different place today if the British had not existed. For one thing, we are all on here using their language. You see, the British Empire's influence on the world is so profound and far reaching, that for the most part, you don't notice it. Even if Britain had only been responsible for the Industrial Revolution, that would still have changed the world more than just about any other event in history, before or since. It's the reason many of the world's population are no longer peasants, even if many still behave and write like they are.
Anyway, you all have independence now, so any problems you may have are no longer ours to solve, nor ours to be blamed-for. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Spirit of Mankind

A person who conspirated in a very evil manner to ruin the independence of a great nation of old heritage and wisdom should not be considered a great man under any pre-text. That should be the spirit of mankind in thr 21st century.

freemind

That's all very pretty to think, but it's not history. It seems to me that this entire thread of conversation is positively *laced* with bias and self-interest. This article is not about the British Raj; nor is it about the 21st Century POV; nor is it about the "spirit of mankind," whatever the crap that means. The article is about Robert Clive, and I would submit that reliable historical sources about Robert Clive ought to be relied upon (whatever their biases) before, and if necessary to the exclusion of, Wikipedia participants who cannot provide comparable or superior sources. At any rate, the article-less brand of English people are using in this thread is so abominable as to be incomprehensible in some instances; I suggest you deal with that issue before you consider rewriting anything. In conclusion: get over yourselves, folks. This preoccupation with ego-political bickering is a major reason Wikipedia is disregarded -and when regarded, disrespected- by historians, teachers and intelligent people everywhere. -Maalox

I'm sorry to say that even after the huge efforts all of the above contributors put into this article it is still largely incomprehensible to a first time reader like myself. I very much agree with Richard Clegg that this should be a concise record of what Clive did and why any of it was important. Instead this is a rambling incoherent list of events and trivia associated with Clive. Well over half the content is unnecessary, it tells me almost nothing about the man himself or why he is considered controversial. It looks as if you are all doing a good job, but there is a long way to go. -Timeandaplace 15:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Maalox. It's things like this back discussion that make Wikipedia a source of entertainment rather than reliable information for me. Well, and sometimes the links to other sites are useful. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A different perspective

If anyone is interested, kindly read this article of mine written sometime ago: Robert Clive: His compulsions. You may follow this link: [1]

I have not had the time to read the article here, nor the debate. May be I will come later when I have time. I came to collect some details; incidently I saw the debate here. --Ved from Victoria Institutions 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

History cannot be altered for the sake of political correctness. It would be wrong to undermine Lord Clive's contributions to the East India Company and to India. The British Empire created India as we know it today and the East India Company's role in uniting the native provinces was undeniable.-Guest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.226.91 (talk) 11:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

The India 'as we know it' was not created by British or the East India company: it would be a very strong statement if we did not consider the longer history of Indian peninsula. India as an entity with periods of unity alternating with periods of disunity has been documented from at least from King Ashoka (304-322BCE)period. The last such empire was Mughal King Aurangezeb (1618 to 1907 AD). Teh empires ruled by two emperors, two millenium apart, encompass majority of what was known as India and thier empires are similar to the British Empire of indian subcontinent. To argue that British united India, is historical shortsightedness. But it is the fact that british on this occasion helped uniting India and there were other strong contenders for uniting India at that time including the Marathas. For more discussion on these see Amarthya sen's Argumentative Indian. (Amartya Sen. 2005 The argumentative Indian, Allen Lane Publishers Barani76 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Barani76

Biased article

After having read this entire page, I can say nothing more except it smacks or glorifying the gory deds Clive did. And he paid for it at the end too by committing suicide. All those people who want to talk about Clive should look into whether he went stark mad leading him to suicide. That would be the real lesson to learn from Clive: not to do evil deeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.190.94 (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yours is an interesting perspnal and moral perspective but, as you would be the first to agree, it does not seem underpinned by any verifiable fact nor to be relevant to the discussion of the subject. 90.197.233.36 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The practices of the Early East Indian company officials are documented by Harvard Social Historian- Nicholas Dirks in his book 'The scandal of empire'. (The scandal of empire-India and the creation of Imperial Britain, Nicholas Dirks, 2006, Harvard Univeristy Press ISBN-13: 978-8178241753). He argues with reasonable evidence that the East India company employees were involved in fraud, usury, and murders (of their own employees if anyone tried to put the house in order if necessary) let alone twisting the historical facts. The deeds of East India company officials and the consequences (famine of bengal 1770), has created lot of uneasiness among the politicians, MPs - some of whom wanted to bring the people to account. i.e perhaps they are not personal enemies of Robert Clive. The end of Clive by suicide has been attributed to the end of his political ambitions- which is a possible explanation (in the absence of other reliable explanations).Barani76 (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Focus on Neutrality and Readability

The scond part of this needed a better cleanup than I could provide but I've watered down some of the cheerleading for Empire and some of the Indian reaction, neither of which are much help in creating a credible article. Also, cut out some of the Indian-English eupemisms and love of multiple-clause sentences to make the second half a little more readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.147.121 (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to take off neutrality tag?

The text still isnt perfect but worst of the imperialistic Anglocentric language has been progressively extracted. The citations are still lacking, though. Does anyone have an ongoing problem with the neutrality of the article as it stands? Mdw0 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones Reference

I am not sure if this should be included in the article because it is minor. Clive or his descendant of the same name was mentioned in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) during the banquet scene in Pangkot palace. Indiana Jones remarks, "there are events more interesting, going back to the time of Clive." (The quote may not be exact as I am quoting from my memory.)

Just a thought. I was going to add it myself but didn't know if it would be a meaningful contribution to the article.

History_Educator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.200.95 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Plumber?

It says that his occupation was a plumber. (See the caption under the first picture.) Is this true??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.200.95 (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The balance sheet

As a young Indian, I do not care that Robert Clive and the BEIC came and colonized the subcontinent. I am not defending imperialism in any way. Neither am I providing an apologia for the wanton economic exploitation of the land perpetrated by the colonisers. Whether we like it or not we had always been overrun by invaders throughout our long history. Why? Maybe the fault is with in ourselves and not the proverbial stars. Much smaller countries and peoples have defended their land and driven out the invaders against greater odds. But such a thing never happened in the course of Indian history. Even the much hailed first war of independence of 1857 ended in failure. The foreign invaders virtually came, saw, conquered and then ruled, happily ever after.

We Indians could never provide a united front to the invaders as we were consumed in bickering with each other and being at each others throats all the time. And the cherry on this pie was the regressive philosophy of ‘Chaturvarnya’ which rejected egalitarianism and relegated a large section of the population to the margins and kept them subservient. To these people, it did not matter who the rulers of the land were, as they remained oppressed, forever at the mercy of their upper caste masters , forever denied the fruits of equality, liberty and justice. So I don’t think we, Indians should look at the actions of Robert Clive through any moralistic goggles. He did whatever he did by the rules of the playbook of his day and presumably had many admirable qualities. Otherwise how would you explain his plethoric successes in the sub continent? All said and done we are pretty much even for our colonial experience. Some might say we are even better for it. I don’t give a damn and if at all, let us learn from our mistakes and move on. (Mksuraj (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Retirement and Death

"Clive was awarded with an Irish peerage and was created Baron Clive of Plassey co Clare and bought lands in County Limerick and County Clare, Ireland. He named part of his lands near Limerick City, Plassey. Following Irish independence, these lands became state property. In the 1970s a technical college, which later became University of Limerick, was built at Plassey." I take it he did this before he committed suicide yet I would like to point out that this quote comes after the part about his death. I know this is niggling but it does disrupt the flow of the end of the article. 161.76.194.213 (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

His trial is a considerably more important event than has been given credit for. The effect on british views and especially those of radical writers, such as Thomas Paine, is very important in world history. Essentially it paraded atrocities committed by the nobility like Lord Clive in front of the entire nation. I know this is painted with a broad brush, I am writing a paper on this, I will find sources and bring them back. Just thought I would put in a word first. Adrianturcato (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Order of Bath Award. The statement he was invested with the Order in 1772, rather late in his life, merits checking against other sources. The painting by George Clive (illustration to this article) dated c.1764 shows him wear what I identify as the collar of the Order with the pendant 'three crowns' badge that became solely that of the Order's Civil Division when the Order was divided into classes long after Clive's lifetime.Cloptonson (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC) A check in the Complete Peerage revealed he was awarded the Order in 1764 but not invested with it until 1772.Cloptonson (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Death - Unhelpful Citation. The citation to the statement he committed suicide by "stabbing himself with a penknife" offers no evidence about the alleged means; it links to a BBC news article about Clive's tortoise which only states Clive "committed suicide". The circumstances of his death merit more learned investigation. He is also alleged to have cut his throat and (more commonly) to have died from overdose of opium (which could have been accidental, given the circumstances of his health). Appreciably, it does not help that his death appears not to have been subject to coroner's inquest or autopsy, and that it occurred before the introduction of death certification in the 19th century.Cloptonson (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I have removed the link, inputting its full details against the account, later in the article, of the tortoise, and outlined the varying reported causes of his death, cited to two modern biographers who produced identically titled books on Clive, both published same year (1974).Cloptonson (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Some-thing's missing.

"The European Trading companies still acknowledged the The relationship between the Europeans in India was influenced by a series of wars and treaties on mainland Europe." Whom - the Emperor? 211.225.30.91 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Other section

In the mention of the movie, "Clive of India", there is a note after Colin Clive - that he wasn't a relation to Robert Clive. In Colin Clive's page, he is listed as being related.Jtyroler (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Legacy/Criticism

It seems surprising that there isn't a specific section in which Clive's dictatorial behaviour is criticised. In many circles, especially in India, Clive is seen as little more than a brutal imperialist. Not mentioning this negative legacy at all pushes the POV out of balance. Mdw0 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Small Clive Album

The VA Museum notes 52 folios for the Small Clive Album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aero13792468 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Shah-alam-ii-mughal-emperor-of-india-reviewing-the-east-india-companys-troops-1781-1894 1247854.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shah-alam-ii-mughal-emperor-of-india-reviewing-the-east-india-companys-troops-1781-1894 1247854.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Shah-alam-ii-mughal-emperor-of-india-reviewing-the-east-india-companys-troops-1781-1894 1247854.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

About title

Why not including "His Excellency"?Gz deleted (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a director

Clive, despite his military accomplishments, was never appointed to the Board of Directors (known as Court of Directors then). He was seen by elite class as nothing more than a handy killing machine with zero business acumen.

Please add this information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C28:194:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:75AC (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to add that information, we would need to find a reliable source for it and phrase it neutrally - see WP:V and WP:NPOV for details. Do you know of a particular book or other scholarly source that includes this? Dreamyshade (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Requested move 07 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust The Homunculus 14:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Robert Clive → Clive of India – On 15 December 2013 User:Solomon7968 moved this article from Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive to Robert Clive citing WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. I don't think either apply. WP:COMMONNAME would certainly be "Clive of India", and WP:CONCISE says that "[t]he basic goal of conciseness is balancing brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic in a way the average person searching for it will recognize": I'd consider myself moderately well-educated, but if I had been asked in a pub-quiz what Clive of India's first name was, I'd have had to think for a bit. I really don't think the "average person" searching for this subject would go for "Robert Clive" as their first option. Opera hat (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose This may not be a totally clear-cut case, but we should be cautious about using cognomens, they may suggest a slightly unencyclopedic style. He may not be terribly well known these days, if a pub quiz asked these days "what was Clive of India's first name?" I think a lot of people would say "who was Clive of India?". Even when he was better known, a lot of the time he would have been just plain Clive. We have T.E. Lawrence, not Lawrence of Arabia, although he is a better known figure. PatGallacher (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it is a clear-cut case. "Robert Clive" is how I've always known him and seen him referred to. It is "Clive of India" that would be mystifying. Sounds like a rather parochial nickname. Walrasiad (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose or move back to Robert Clive, 1st Baron Clive. Robert Clive is his common name, far more commonly heard than Clive of India. Lord Clive is also common, so the title is not incorrect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This needs broader discussion than the scope of this requested move; perhaps input form Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics‎, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom etc. My hypothesis is taking out the "1st Baron Clive" part from the article title will help in increasing page views in the long run. Indeed the article traffic has increased after the move. People of similar level of notability like say Warren Hastings are perfectly recognisable in their real name although the average reader (i.e. not so well versed in Indian history) have no clue that Warren is "Hastings of India". Solomon7968 15:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith was a contemporary of Clive, so he is a WP:PRIMARY source and can be only used for regular facts with due caution. Anything bordering analysis (such as criticism) needs secondary academic sources (there are truckloads of them in this case). Any objection to this? Solomon7968 08:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because an author wrote at roughly the same time as an event, that doesn't make it a primary source. Smith was interpreting Clive's actions from the other side of the world. He was uninvolved in actual events and was not an 'insider.' Smith's writings on Clive were used as examples of forces in political economy. They are not journalistic, but application of real life economies to match economic theories based on other primary sources, at least one step removed from the actual events. They are Smith's editorial: interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas reported as news. This makes it a secondary source, the same as secondary sources we use all the time from modern media interpreting modern events. Also, even if Clive was a primary source, Wikipedia does not absolutely preclude the use of primary source as a reference, it only says that their use is not recommended because they are prone to misuse. The use in this case is fairly limited, because it is only used to show criticism existed. The only possible issue is that Smith's writing is criticism without literally declaring itself to be criticism, so it could be said that here is a case where the source needs to say outright the sky is blue. I'd like to see someone make that case. Mdw0 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Third rate writing

Quote: was a British officer and soldier of fortune who established the military and political supremacy of the East India Company in Bengal. He is credited with securing India, and the wealth that followed, for the British crown. END OF QUOTE

Most of the adjectives and suggestive and descriptive words are wrong, and mischievous. The general spirit of most of this and similar articles on India pages reflect the general low quality standards of the modern Pakistan/Indian academic textbooks.

Clive was not a British 'officer' nor a soldier of fortune. He secured not 'India', if this term is to mean conquering a nation called India. He was possibly the person who laid the foundation of the nation that can be called British-India.

The suggestive words: securing the wealth that followed' is also quite mischievous. It does seem to suggest that the East India Company was on a looting mission in the subcontinent, instead of doing trade, in a location that had no sensible law and order mechanism or machinery. East India Company, though it functioned under the licence of the British Crown, was not on a looting mission.

Moreover the article writer seems to suggest in the above words that the common people of the subcontinent were fools to support the East India Company. The real fact was that in a geographical location wherein around 99% of the common man was under slavish conditions, not only the East India Company, but even its greatest official Robert Clive was seen as a social liberator force. Everything good and of substantial quality in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, India & Bangladesh)can be traced back to the endevours of East India Company.

It is possible that Indian subcontinent academic article writers may not agree with the suggestion that the common man does also want some liberation from the shackles placed on them by the governing folks of their country. Indian academics currently gather between 40 to 75 thousand rupees per month for 13 months a year, and a huge or rather astronomical pension/perks, in a nation where the common man's monthly earnings are just between 2000 to 15000 rupees with no other social security. These self-conceited, selfish academics can afford to waste everyone's time by writing suggestive writings about the greatest social liberator force this subcontinent has seen in a couple of thousand years.

The question is how is Wikipedia allowing these crooks to write such nonsense that simply suggests that the people who supported the East India Company were fools, and these grand, conceited modern Indian academics are sort of know-alls.

See these words:

QUOTE: In 1744 Clive's father acquired for him a position as a "factor" or "writer" END OF QUOTE it seems to suggest that Clive's father got in a great post in a great company, when actually it was just a job in a English trading company.

QUOTE: working as little more than a glorified assistant shopkeeper, END OF QUOTE. Does the writer have some problem that he has to insert adjectives to each and every mention of any work or doing? His or her personal prejudices are entering into an arena wherein at best he or she can at best be mentioned as unfit to enter.

SIGNED--117.204.80.58 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. First of all, your heading does not just allude to, it actually says the writing itself is 3rd rate. Obviously there is nothing at all wrong with the writing, its just that you don't agree with it.
Second, the allusions or suggestions or 'general spirit' that you are referring don't exist. The opening line states what Clive was credited with doing, not that he personally conquered India. You've managed to extrapolate to a ridiculous degree and then whinge about your own extrapolation. No dictionary will say that 'securing wealth' means looting, piracy, theft, or anything of the kind. I doubt there is a more neutral term that we could insert in here. The line about Clive's father is completely neutral - it says Clive's father acquired Clive a position. It does not suggest or say anything about it being a 'great' job, or otherwise. Are you just looking for things to be critical about, even if they're not there, so you can the complain about academia in India? I think its a little unfair for you to complain about personal prejudices when you obviously have your own fair share of those. I wonder if any editing would satisfy you because you're currently reading some sort of anti-Empire prejudice into everything, and its just not there. If anything, the article is pro-Clive.
Third, if you don't like what's there, or even a possible suggestion of what is not there, why not be bold and edit the text yourself? Is it because you don't have any references that back up your changes?
And finally, you have made an assumption that the article was written by Indian academics. Even the most cursory look at the history of edits will show that like most Wikipedia articles, this one has been written by multiple editors from a variety of backgrounds.
Nothing personal, but I think you're wrong.Mdw0 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Clive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mongols should be Mughals?

In the lead, it says "when Clive first arrived, India was dominated by the atrocities of the Mongols...". Surely Mongols should actually be Mughals. Indian history is not my specialty, but I am not aware of any Mongol presence in 18th century India, which was dominated by the Mughal empire. Can someone who actually knows a thing or two about 18th century India check this out and fix it if necessary? If I'm right, it's quite an embarrassing error... A2soup (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

right--i fixed it Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Clive. 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) 22:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Clive. 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) 15:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegation of genocide

The lede section of this article contains the following sentence, which was added by screen name "103.140.83.43" on 8 November 2019:

"He caused the biggest genocide in the history of Bengal and India and killed over one million Bengalis after winning the Battle of Plassey."

This sentence is false. I have therefore deleted it because:

  1. There is no citation for this sentence.
  2. There is no record of any genocide which occurred immediately after the Battle of Plassey (1757) and which resulted in the deaths of one million Bengalis.
  3. There is no record that Robert Clive ordered or administered any large-scale genocide in Bengal.

The Great Bengal famine is estimated to have killed 10 million Indians, including Bengalis, but this famine occurred in 1770, after Clive had left India in 1767.

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite

This article is quite poor. Clive's reputation is not controversial, it is blatantly negative. I will be amending the article based on scholarship produced in last 20-30 years. HISTRS applies. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sst

Who was appointed for the first time by the Robert climb to draw the map of India 2405:205:1586:4FD4:0:0:F68:28AC (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Clive/Archive_1&oldid=1212763897"