Talk:British Raj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Raj article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 2

Archive using the "move procedure"


Contents

[edit] Requested moves

requested moves:

[edit] British India (Band)

British India redirects to this page, instead of the page British India (band). Can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.118.39 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of internal links to British India are lookng for this page, so that change would be inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony'

would be a better & more appropriate & more meaningful & comprehensive title for the article. The word 'Raj' in the title 'British Raj' is not an English word & does not have any meaning in English.The colony extended from Burma to Afghanistan, & Nepal to Maldive Islands, so it covered more than India. And so it will include Hindustan irrespectively whether it was ruled by the British Government indirectly by proxy via the officers of the British East India Company since the start of British colonization in 1637AD there or directly by British Government through a Viceroy as 'Indian Empire' since 1857AD to its end in 1947. ILAKNA (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

'Raj' is commonly encountered in the names of Indian restaurants, it is therefore not unknown within wider English speaking society. Moreover the term ‘the Raj’ is well known and understood as a reference to the British Indian empire. Both in contemporary and historical usage. It was also (in an historical context) referred to as the Indian empire, and as such is the most likely (and indeed most commonly encountered) name for both the era and area. The article is about the era of direct rule from London. It should make reference (and does) to the wider historical context, but there are other articles that deal with other periods of Indian history. [[Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)]]

'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' - you have to name it as something in ready usage, so people can look it up with ease, and instantly know what the subject matter is. Although 'British Raj' is not perfect 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' should certainly not be considered. It might sum it up for about 200 years - but that's not really the point. The point is, nobody calls it that. But anyway.... it is debatable whether there was any British 'colonization' in 17th century India. During that period, the number of British residents in India, was numbered in the 100's, as compared to the tens of millions of Indians who surrounded them. Up until the mid 18th century, the Company actually limited the extent of British settlement, and would seek the deportation of any English resident not on their pay-roll. They were keen to keep Indian business a strictly East India Company affair, and happily closed-off India for most of the British people whilst maintaining a minimal staff in South Asia (to reduce overheads). This was hardly an act of "colonization", in fact, it was quite the opposite. Of course, times did change, but we're talking about the 17th century here. For example, modern Japanese firms might buy land in India, employ private security guards, maintain a staff of a few hundred Japanese in their factories and offices, then move a good portion of their profits back to their home island - this is not much more than the East India Company did c.1650. Hence, to use 'British Indo-Subcontinent Colony' for the entire period of British presence on Indian soil, is to imply that it was a colony from the outset, or that the Company (at that time) intended to colonize - which is fatuous, so within this title there is a debatable historical conclusion - whereas, at least "British Raj", is fairly neutral and widely understood. --Blenheim Shots (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insinuation of bankrupt Britain

While there can be doubt that Britain was bankrupt at the end of WW-2; I find it hard to believe that this is what led to Britain's apparent "decision" to leave India. Logically, continuing to exploit the colonies would work to their benefit financially. Also, the British would have relinquished control of all their colonial assets including Africa which they apparently didn't. Perhaps someone can provide some information in this regard. 124.124.0.1 (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the user 124.124.0.1 has been Identified as demolitionman who has been banned--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reply. 121.243.204.78 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)