Talk:British Raj/Archive 2

message: As the first sentence of the article British Indian Empire is "The British Indian Empire, informally, the British Raj (rāj, lit. "rule" in Hindi) or simply British India, internationally and contemporaneously, India, was the term used synonymously for the region, the rule, and the period, from 1858 to 1947" and the British Indian Empire article was created in December 2004 as a redirect to this page and only became a page in its own right with Revision as of 03:26, 27 August 2007 with the edit comment "new article on 1858-1947 period created with content and infobox from British India" NB British India was then as now a redirect to this article). Therefor  the British Indian Empire page should be turned back into a redirect. Particularly as the article was created by user:AjaxSmack just after there was no consensus to make a move AS suggested from this page name to "British India" (see Revision as of 17:43, 26 August 2007 and as such I think it is a WP:POVFORK. --Philip Baird Shearer 01:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergefrom British Indian Empire‎

message: What about.....
The first class rail network that the British built?
The almost continual state of civil war under Mogul rule and the relative internal peace of British rule?
The supression of the Thugs?
The supression of Sati?
The supression of female infanticide?
The supression of human sacrifice?
The relative social empowerment of the Hindu upper classes after centuries of Muslim domination?
British promotion of Indian female education?
The Asiatic Society, and the Archeological Survey of India?
Medical advances in British India - educated Hindus were encouraged to perform autopsies, the medical colleges, the discovery of the causes of the bubonic plague and malaria. 
The "quota system" in government ? - introduced by the British.
India's first newspaper.
Comprehensive modern censuses
The construction of the fine capital of New Delhi?
etc. etc. etc. - 
It also fails to mention that the Raj was a fantastic political and military feat. At most only 1 person in 400, in British India, was European.
IN SHORT, ANYTHING REMOTELY POSITIVE IS IGNORED. 
Serious historians maintain the the British Raj was a mixed bag, with "the good, the bad and the ugly" - the fact that you highlight only the negative aspects is very telling. 
The bias of the article is painful. The writers (sometimes in bad English) go into detail about (for example) the INA, who were never any threat to the British, and caused very little damage -even the Japanese knew they were a very poor outfit, and used INA soldiers mostly as camp guards and porters, this kind of thing is talked about - and yet all of the above is unmentioned! I suppose 80% of the article is true - but the way other positive aspects of the Raj have been edited out / ignored, shows that the article has been cobbled together by nationalistic Indians, with an axe to grind. Some poor English usage also gives this fact away.
Example: "When British arrived to India for trading, prosperous India accounted for more than 17% of the world GDP, when British left India in 1947, India accounted for less than 1% of the world GDP." - Terrible English and (of course) no source given. 
Also, as is often done by Indians, it sites the rather trivial uprisings after WWII (which resulted in VERY few British casualties, which were not supported by Congress, the ML or senior Indian army officers and nothing compared to 1857) as a major cause for the British withdrawal -but fails to mention that there was no way that the new Socialist UK government was ever going to hold on to India, and that promises were made during WWII for post-war Indian independence - a promise kept.
This article is a total sham. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia - not a soap box for Indian nationalistic propaganda. 
Personally I think that the British Raj was racist, and that India lost more than it gained through British rule - but the picture painted here is not objective at all. Can a section not be added, that at least mentions any positive aspects? I can even write it if needs be. Surely both sides of the argument should be presented? Or are you happy for this article to remain a thinly veiled anti-British rant? 
TB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.251.208 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tend to agree with some of the things you say.  I am in the process of rewriting the "Indian independence movement" article; the rewriting, unfortunately, was put on hold during the last two months, but I will be attending to it now. (See Fowler&fowler's Indian independence movement.)  Since there seems to be some overlap between that page and this (British raj), I will, upon the former's completion, determine what belongs where and then attend to rewriting this article.  As yet, the only thing that I have worked on here is the lead, where my main concern was ensuring that accurate terminology and dates were being used.  So, the lead was changed from this before version to this after version, and I added the 1909 map of the Indian empire as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my note in the section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely Biased‎ Article

message: I hope to be simultaneously revising this page and the Indian independence movement page.  As I have already indicated above, I am writing a combined Raj+Independence movement subpage: user:Fowler&fowler/Short_History_Indian_Independence_Movement.  I had initially thought I'd wait until the entire subpage article was complete and then transfer text to the two Wikipedia articles, but in light of the above discussion, I am moving some text to give people an idea of the forthcoming changes.  The text in question is in the section "World War I and its aftermath."  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that the revision will take four to six weeks.  So, please bear with me, if temporarily the article has an unkempt look.  All suggestions are welcome.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: this article has far to many images that are arranged poorly, and they are causing gaps in the text. Perhaps a gallery would be more appropriate. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. They've been arranged in two galleries.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure the Mughal flag is correctly depicted. The crescent moon was derived from the Turkish flag; the Mughals on the other hand used the lion and the sun as their devices. I had once seen a Mughal flag depicting a golden sun on a white background. Can someone enlighten on this? Gopalan evr (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Nice images of British contributions but where are the images of the beatings, deaths, riots, auctioning off of Marajah's and Prince's entire palaces in London? Dont forget all the Jewels, gold and silver that were shipped off to London and into the British Crown Jewels. Kohinoor anyone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.13.207 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 2 

message: I will suggest a neutral editor have a look, because it is very easy to have an Indian nationalists as much as an apologist for the Raj to introduce PoV here, specially in light of above comments that repeated the BBC's eve of independence broadcast and MI2's war time intelligence manouvres literally verbatim. Rueben lys (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Above topics

message: Here's are two early published work.
*The British Colonial Empire.by W. E. Simnett, and 
*India Without Fable: A 1942 Survey. by Kate L. Mitchell 
The review of the two works (Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1. (Mar., 1943), pp. 127-130.) should help construct atleast an NPOV view that looks at it from both an involved (Simnett is British) and uninvolved (Mitchell is American). We should be able to find an Indian account as well (I found Sumit Sarkar's 1983 Modern India very helpful).Rueben lys (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Works on the British Raj

message: For the sake of clarity, I am copying this message I left for Fowler&fowler on his talk page
Note that the quotes attributed to the viceroy are diametrically opposite. Could somebody please clarify this or remove this please.Rueben lys (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed the message on my talk page.  Someone else posted right after you and I got confused.  Not sure which "good review" you are talking about, but thanks.  As for your second paragraph, I have already mentioned above that the subpage that I am writing is not be any means complete.  What was initially an outline is now being expanded to a combined British raj+Indian independence movement article (even though it is titled F&f's Short History of the Indian independence movement).  Once completed, I will then divvy up the text into its two sub-articles.  Yes, I am well aware that the railways section etc. needs to be expanded, but I have added it here for now, because I feel something is better than nothing.  As for economic exploitation etc., that too will be added.  Finally, about Harding's quote.  Well, there really is no contradiction.  Harding did worry publicly about denuding India of its troops (since there were just 15,000 British troops left in India during the war – and most of them were in NWFP) and the exact quote from Judith Brown is correctly cited in the text.  That was the primary British worry about India during the war, and Hew Strachan, himself quotes Judith Brown for most of that paragraph.  The second Harding quote (for which Strachan, uncharacteristically, provides poor attribution) is to be taken ironically, as an afterthought.  The British government didn't export Indian soldiers to Mesopotamia because they feared revolt in India; the soldiers went there as units of the army that had both British and Indian personnel.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content and quotes

message: :::I have provided the correct citation for the Hardinge quote.  It is page 197 of Judith Brown's book, Modern India: Origins of an Asian Democracy.  The extended quote is: "Fortunately for the British, local disorder was never generalized; nor was there an all-India campaign against increased taxation.  Had there been more than sporadic local outbreaks, they would have had their backs to the wall, because of the withdrawal of troops India to the Middle East and Western Front, and the departure of many expatriate civilians, including ICS men, for Europe for combat.  Hardinge as Viceroy wrote in 1914 of 'the risks involved in denuding India of troops', and admitted 'there is no disguising the fact that our position in India is a bit of a gamble at the present time.' By March 1915 there was not a single British battalion, except Territorials, in the subcontinent, apart from eight on the northern frontier that could not be moved."  (And, for the Hardinge quote, Brown herself gives this primary source: (Hardinge to V. Chirol, 19 November 1914, Cambridge University Library, Hardinge Manuscripts (93)).  
:::What do you provide by way of the "contradiction?"  It is a reference to a page from Hew Strachan's book, and you say, "(Strachan) quotes the viceroy as having expressed the opinion that the less that remains in India the better since they were the likely source of trouble."  Well, what does Strachan really say?  Here is the extended passage from my copy of his book (History of World War I (volume 1, 2003)), "The major operations from 1815—the Crimean War, the Boer War, and (in effect) the Western front in the First World War—were left to British units; most colonial wars fought beyond India's own immediate frontiers between these dates did not involve Indian troops.  The primary job of Indian soldiers was the defence of India, both on its north-west frontier and, within its borders, against internal sedition.   ... Nonetheless, the effect of the outbreak of war was to leave India itself remarkably exposed in military terms.  By late 19014 the British garrison had tumbled to 15,000 men.  In March 1915 all eight regular battalions still in India were stationed on the north-west frontier.  In the course of the year territorial battalions came out to replace the regulars.  But the British numbers remained, in relative terms, exiguous.  In June 1918, the British troops in India mustered 93,670 compared to 388,599 Indian soldiers.  In 1922, when the Indian population totalled 315 million, the British official presence (troops apart) embraced 1,200 in the Indian civil service, 700 policemen, and 600 medical officers. (For the above text Strachan himself cites Judith Brown.) For a group for whom the memory of the mutiny of 1857 was indeed worrying, Hardinge, who remained remarkably phlegmatic throughout, still (italics mine) observed in August 1914: 'after all it is the Native troops that present the greatest danger so, I say, the more go to the war the less danger there is at home." (For the last quote, Strachan, uncharacteristically, provides poor attribution: "Quotation provided by Dr. G. Martin.")  What is the contradiction?  Strachan himself says that the primary worry was leaving India "remarkably exposed in military terms" (similar to Hardinge's "denuding India of troops").  Sure, the British was also worried about insurrection by the Native troops—they had been worrying about that since 1857, especially insurrection by Muslim troops.   The British worried about a lot of things: they worried about the Russians, about the Turks (and Pan-Islamism in India).  They worried about the Afghan frontier; the Afghans themselves were champing at the bit to attack India (see Strachan pages 771-775).  However, as the later pages of Strachan's book show, there was no significant mutiny in the army (either in India or outside).  The little there was, was swiftly dealt with.  
:::The problem I see with your edits, is that they lack perspective.  They lack a sense of (historical) proportion.  Thus, you first disputed my use of "ousted," when the unanimous opinion of historians (even the ones you yourself quote like Sumit Sarkar and Kulke and Rothermund) is that he was ousted.  I had to produce extended quotes to make my point.  You next doubt my quote of Hardinge, propping up a throwaway remark by Hardinge (spoken ironically) to pride of place in some interpretation you plan to make.  Don't you think that if the British really had shunted off most of the Indian army to the Middle East in order for them not to revolt, it would have made the history text-books by now?  How come none of the standard history texts of modern India by Judith Brown, David Low, Sumit Sarkar, Metcalf and Metcalf, Sekhar Bandopadhyay, Stanley Wolpert, David Ludden, Peter Robb, Bose and Jalal, ... are silent on this?  All you can find is one quote at the end of a paragraph, which Strachan himself spends mostly paraphrasing Judith Brown.
:::The bottom line for me is that we have already had an RfC on the Talk:India page, at the conclusion of which, it was suggested that I write an outline of the Indian independence movement, which I did.  It was further suggested that the outline should be expanded.  I am in the process of expanding that, but since it is hard to separate Indian action from British response, what I am writing instead is a joint history of the Raj and the Independence movement.  I have already explained twice above that as and when different sections get written I'll be adding them to the respective articles.  Wikipedia being a freely editable encyclopedia, I can't, of course, stop anyone from editing it, but I am requesting that you kindly hold off your edits until the text is more complete.  By adding poorly summarized text that lacks the perspective needed for an article of this size, and, in addition, is sometimes based on incorrect interpretations (as the two examples above indicate), you make my task harder.  I am again requesting you to let me finish the article.  You can then provide your input.  I am happy to add an "underconstruction" template to warn readers of the article's inadequacies.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply.  Actually, I will do one better, I found out today that I have to leave for my Christmas vacation a little earlier than I had anticipated.  I will likely have little or no access to the internet during this time.  So, I will work on the text off-line and add it upon my return in January.  We can then talk about the references and interpretations.  Thanks again.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: I have not had a careful read of the new article yet (I'll have time tomorrow) but it looks 50 times better than what was there before. It looks like.... an article on the British Raj! Well laid out too! Thanks for all your hard work - I hope you all have a good new year. 
TB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.173.174 (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Job

message: Burma is not a successor to British India as it was separated from the British Indian Empire in 1937, 10 years before the Raj came to an end. Even Singapore was briefly under British India administration, but that doesn't make it a successor. India and Pakistan are the only "successors" of the Indian Empire. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burma 

message: I'm wondering about this, why does the lead say British Indian Empire? IIRC the name of the nation was just the Indian Empire, I think the article itself pretty much explains that it was actually a British dominated nation, having British up there makes it look like its part of its name. If I'm wrong though and its official name was British Indian Empire shouldn't the whole thing be in bold?--Him and a dog 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So...is that Indian Empire or British Indian Empire then?I'd guess the former due to the way the passport system used to work with Britain but that's just my guess.--Him and a dog 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name was "Indian Empire."  See my map in the main page infobox.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: To be very honest, as long as the article explains (as it does in the lead) that it is to do with British India, explains the official and other common names, and that this was a part of the larger British Empire, I think it is fine to keep the article where it is. I am just about to add a disambig, I think this should sort out any problems of ambiguity. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Empire

message: Can the Maratha empire really be considered a predecessor seeing as it more or less ceased to be a force around the 1820s. In that note, souldn't the Sikh Confederacy be considered as a predecessor seeing as it was more or prominent till around 1850s? rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Martha empire as predecessor and others

message: If it is possible, can some one add a section about the artifacts and the precious gems(like 'Talisman of the Throne') that were stolen by the british be added to this article203.81.211.108 (talk) dan  —Preceding comment was added at 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stolen Artifacts and their whereabouts???

message: For discussion as to what is the best way to solicit Indian views and opinions regarding future course of this article. Obviously there are better sources our there. Desione (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for wider participation 

message: I think what you have there for a title, is a call for a narrow focus by ill-informed people.  What part of Wikipedia WP:RS says that British sources about the British Raj are unreliable?  Specifically, which sources in References section, by British authors do you find unreliable, and which chapters and which page numbers carry examples of such bias?  Please be specific.  
::Are you denying the fact that British carried out atrocities, slave trade, mass murders, etc? Rest later. Desione (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, now please start discussing british atrocities. Desione (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a more complete list of the references for the forthcoming version of the article: References from F&f.  The article will have both the good and the bad.  Please either wait until it is finished, or point out specific examples of British bias in the numerous references.  Putting in a sentence or two or poorly thought through material now on British atrocities serves little purpose from my perspective.  However, you are welcome to add critical historiography yourself, if it is properly sourced.  The reference list has enough material, both laudatory and critical of British policy in India, for you to be able to find something.  As you will see, many of the histories are written by Indians.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include Amartya Sen in your list of references. If you are not familiar with his work let me know and I will clarify. Desione (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will clarify? I know if must be a daily insult for you to converse in the English language, given your disquisition on the British and EVIL above, but "clarify" is different from "inform." Or are you suggesting there is still more to Sen than the economist who graduated from Presidency College, Calcutta (founded by the British), received his Ph. D. at Trinity College, Cambridge (alas, another British institution), won the Adams Smith Prize (British) for Choice of Techniques (written under the supervision of Joan Robinson  and Maurice Dobb (both British)), taught at the University of Delhi (founded by the British), while he wrote Collective Choice and Social Welfare, (inspired by Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham and a host of British Philosophers) moved to LSE (British) and continued to work on Welfare Economics (a field created by British economist A. C. Pigou), moved to Oxford University (British) and turned his attention to inequality and famines and wrote Poverty and famines: An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation, moved to Harvard University founded by John Harvard (also British), and then back to Trinity College, Cambridge (British), when he wrote The Argumentative Indian, which got him into trouble with the Hindutva crowd?  With such impeccable Britain-related credentials, I am surprised he belongs on your list.  Sen's book, BTW, properly belongs to the Famine in India page.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. All this, BTW, is off the top of my head (since you won't find it in any Wikipedia article), should you deign to "clarify" things for me again.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: aNd yr pOinT Iz? cuz da wy I fiGUr it iz that onz the foundations of universities az institutions of higher learning wer laid in India (and one or two other places), the rezt is (as they say) history. Not counting the financing theze univs got as a direct result of British Raj loot (like as in thieevery) Comprende? Desione (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh dear, oh dear, seems like quite a heated exchange - but quite amusing nonetheless :-), could someone supply details of an atrocity (+source)? Of course the British in India took advantage of the situation they were in and exploited it. But many of the atrocities they were 'responsible for' will of course be tempered by the fact that the people implementing the action usually were not British (1857/1858 was perhaps a bit of an exception). Pahari Sahib 15:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You might find this interesting too, especially in light of Fowler's vividly ptytic championship of Universitites of India and Britain and of the Indian students. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "ptytic."  Hmm.  What language is that?  Apparently not one that the British forced on their subjects. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not actually, well spotted. It is infact a language more ancient and arguably (especially to its proud users) much superior to that. I'll let you work it out. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Or is it "Call for narrow focus?"

message: The criticisms of the Raj certainly pertinent to the article, and the decline in socio-economic conditions in India is more than adequately described, so shouldn't be hard to locate. The decline in the textile industry and agriculture, the rise in famines, disastrous social and economic policies, racist social constructs etc, these are more than just recorded. I dont see why or how this has anything to do with the industrial revolution or reneissance in Europe. I can write out a summary section if given enough time. But I certainly do agree that these need to be included. Incidentaly, I also have an issue with the section heading of ==Beginings of self-government==, because it seems to imply this wasn't there before. There was local self-government, but not representative or democratic, and the title should reflect that, as opposed to the notion propagated that India was a land of unruly savages before Britain came to rescue them, which is what seems to be the opinion of some of the above editors. Also, out things into contextm, company arrived as traders, not India-saving missions. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of the Raj

message: British Raj has lead to distruction and economic devastation of Indian Subcontinent. The colour discrimination was rampant and only whites were allowed to hold the important positions. The Indian public was used to serve the cause of British interests in various parts of the world mostly as indentured labourers or soldiers etc. British applied their genocidal policies similar to the policies used in Australia to reduce the indegenous people into Aboriginal minority and disadvantaged section of the society. They created Pakistan on communal designs so that there would be no peace in the subcontinent for the decades to come, they even funded terrorism and
drug trade to destabilise India since Independence. They stole billions of dollars in the form of jems, jewellery and gold to leave India bankrupt and lame. The demise of the British Raj was the single most important event in the life of million of Indians who were leading a life of slavery and exploitation under barbaric and cruel people from England.--Himhifi 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Raj was nothing but Cultural Imperalism, Slavery & Murder of Humanity. 

message: Guys, honestly stop it!!! No one's doing anything to improve the article which should be the real obective. I have suggested above (cant even find it in the above deluge) that I will write out a short summary on the impact of the Raj if you guys will for once stop bickering and help me find the resources. Fowler, like it or not, has written a provisional article that in my opinion covers a lot of grounds that needs to be covered. Yes, it is not perfect, but the way forward, as someone suggested above (cant even find that) is to add referenced concrete stuff to that.Wikipedia, like every other good work, is based on collaboration, no one knows the best, but can work together. To say there was no negative impact is myopic, biased and false and has been addressed by a number of historians. To say there was no positive impact is myopic, biased and false and has been addressed by a lot of historians too! Now take a deep breath, step back, and think how you can improve this article such that it can stand up to criticisms. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to dig up multiple references and provide any help needed. Please let me know. Thanks Desione (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As I have explained to you many times before, I am expanding the article off-line, since I had been traveling for the last two months.  It should have been done by now, but needs another few weeks, because of unforeseen events in my personal life.  The new article is an expanded version of the "provisional" article.  Nowhere does it say that there is no negative impact.  Even the "provisional" version has a tentative criticism section Effects on the economy section.  I personally don't need your summary, although I can't stop you from providing it.  With that said, I will now not access this page for the next three weeks, when I hope to have the article ready.  I am taking it off my watchlist.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While your efforts are welcome, other users works need to be incorporated into the article. Desione (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down

message: The current British Raj article is a whitewashed version that shows British Raj in a benign manner. A partial list of reasons why the NPOV flag is needed:
* No mention of Jalliawallah Bagh massacre.
* Racist policies which were central to British Raj are not discussed.
* No negative images (as opposed to mostly benign or some positive - first Indian to be awarded Victoria cross) give a very clean image of British Raj as opposed to its real perception as abuse and exploitation.
* No mention of widespread general deterioration of conditions during British Raj.
* No discussion of British policies (and indifference) that lead to various famines - 20 to 40 million people killed by conservative and liberal estimates.
* British Raj and its predecessor was not just abuse and exploitation of entire South Asia (not just India).
* For good or for bad, some of the most difficult problems today (Israel/Phelestine and Kashmir issues) are legacies of British Raj.
The article needs to be written to show British Raj in a negative light instead of whitewashing over all ills of British Raj to show as if nothing happened and everything was nice and smooth. The ills of colonialism and imperialism are well recognized today and any article that does not consistently show this is biased to begin with. Not just me, but multiple editors on this discussion page have supported this. A consensus regarding WP:NPOV nature of this article does not exist. Please do not revert the NPOV tag until these issues are settled. Desione (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had paid any attention to the talk page discussion, you would know that even the provisional version of the article (for both British Raj and the Indian Independence Movement) that I had written on my user page, had section headings on Jallianwallah Bagh and Economic Critiques.  See here.  The combined article has since been greatly expanded off-line, currently at approximately 170KB of text alone and with meticulous references.  Nothing like your nonspecific ruminations of the last few days.  Nothing, for example, like the reference you provide of Manmohan Singh's acceptance speech at the occasion of receiving his honorary Cantab doctorate.  Singh, quotes  "Cambridge economist" Angus Maddison (to pay a compliment to his benefactors), but doesn't tell you that Maddison's  only association with Cambridge was his undergraduate years there.  That, in common parlance, doesn't make a "Cambridge economist;" a faculty position does. Please read the provisional version again, especially sections 2 and 3.  I would request you to hold your horses, until you've seen the final version in a few weeks.  All your objections have already been incorporated.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take your time. I am not in any hurry (as long as the NPOV flag stays). Also, I know that you are well aware of the fact that this is a collaborative effort. Desione (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you've been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring.  I hope you will be more cooperative in the future.   A collaborative effort doesn't mean that everyone and their brother's idiosyncratic notions of history need to be accommodated in this article.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV flag 

message: It is rediculous to glorify British rule on the grounds that it has lead to some development or industrialisation in India. Grossly it was a misrule which was a drain on the Indian economy, expolitation of the masses, slavery and crimes against humanity. Western media has potrayed India in the negative light undermining the development and high rate of growth in the modern times mainly 
due to the systemic racism and racial bias in their countries. How can you justify or glorify the foreign rule on the grounds that the parent country Britain was powerful world economy at that time or even today.  
In the country like Australia which has become a developed country mainly due to the export of natural resources as 70% of its GDP comes from export of raw materials, indegenous Aboriginal people are still treated as racial pariah and are the poorest and disadvantaged section of the society in the majority white country. Therefore foreign rule can't guarantee racial equality or equal opportunity for the original inhabitants of the colonised land and therefore can't be glorified on the grounds of some economic development which had occured shear out of necessity like procuring the raw materials for the rapid industrialisation in the parent country England. There are several examples of British misrule and evils of colonisation all over the world.--Himhifi 11:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evils of Colonisation Should be a Part of Discussion For NPOV! 

message: Good historical account of East India Company, corruption and mismanagement by company official (that bankrupted the company) while growing personal fortunes, and how the company increased its tax revenue from farmers even during famines (while worsening the famine). Incompetent and Evil at the same time. . Desione (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please spare us the references.  You will be better off reading (and at least making an attempt at understanding) the article by Om Prakash (added above by user:Rueben lys), than dumping your latest newspaper nugget here.  As for the British East India company, please go and have a ball on that page, not here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets try to get beyond usage of words such as "dumping your latest newspaper nugget" and "please go and have a ball on that page." The current section on east india company (like much of the article) is extremely benign - a whitewashed version of its actual deeds. And this needs to be covered. Desione (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude: The East India Company 

message: This article absolutely DOESNOT mention anything about the atrocities British caused in bengal. What about the destruction of cloth industries in present-day Bangladesh. Bengal contained the finest cloth industry at that time. 'muslin', shawal' cloths were one of the finest in the world at that time. It's because of the cloth industry of Bengal that British, Dutch, French, Portugese came all the way from Europe to India to do trading. After taking over Bengal, they looted Bengal, destroyed the cloth industries, imposed sactions on it. Dhaka was back to jungle in 50 years. They created a new capital in Calcutta. All of these are well documented. Why doesn't this article mention any of that ??. --68.179.122.177 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I don't have these readily available so the text is useful. If anyone can shed light on 1) how and where east india company distributed goods that it "imported" from south asia, and 2) trade protectionist policies, it would be quite useful.
British rule was not glorious for us. Please be at least fair & balanced in writing history in wikipedia. This is not a forum or blog --68.179.122.177 (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "famous weavers of Bengal" are specifically mentioned in the text as suffering. Relata refero (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about their atrocities in East Bengal (Bangladesh) 

message: This talk page was getting too large and unwieldy, and there was a cycle of claim and counter claim - so no offence to anyone I have archived it here, so anyway would anyone care to comment on how this article could be improved?, succinctly of course.  Pahari Sahib 03:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To user:Pahari Sahib, user:Rueben lys, user:Desione, and user:Himhifi: In the next couple of weeks, I will be adding the material I have been working on. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward