Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India/Archive 3

message: :For the discussion that led to this draft see Talk:British India/Archive 2
===Prose===
British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under British governance between 1612, when the first permanent factory was set up by the English East India Company on the west coast of India, and 1947, when British rule in India ended.  Until its victory in the Battle of Plassey in 1765, the East India Company was able to achieve only small territorial gains for itself in and around its factory towns.  After 1773, the Company formally commenced governing its expanding territory, held in trust by it for the British Crown, as it successfully displaced other European powers from the region.  By the early 19th century, the British had become the most powerful political and military entity on the subcontinent. Company rule in India ended in 1858 following the events of the Indian rebellion of 1857.  India was thereafter directly ruled by British Crown as a colony of the United Kingdom, and officially known after 1876 as the Empire of India. India consisted of regions referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British, and other regions, the Princely States (also Native States), that were ruled by Indian rulers, and that were allowed a measure of internal autonomy in exchange for British suzerainty; in addition, there were Portuguese and French exclaves in India. Independence from British rule was achieved in 1947 with the formation of the dominions of India and Pakistan, the latter also including present-day Bangladesh.    
The term British India also applied to Burma (present-day Myanmar) for a shorter time period: from 1824, a small part of Burma, and from 1886, most of Burma came under British India, an arrangement that lasted until 1937, when Burma commenced to be administered as a separate British colony. British India did not apply to other countries in the region, such as Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), which was a British Crown Colony or the Maldive Islands, which were a British protectorate.  At its peak, the territory under British influence extended from Burma in the east to Afghanistan in the north west, parts of Tibet in the north east, and the colony of Aden in the west.
Here are two tables (accompanying the map) of the Presidencies/Provinces of British India for the years 1805 and 1910, respectively:
Presidency/Province of British India (1805)            	Headquarters	Chief Administrative Officer
Bengal Presidency (including present-day Bangladesh)   	Calcutta    	Governor-General-in-Council
Bombay Presidency                                      	Bombay      	Governor-in-Council
Madras Presidency                                      	Madras      	Governor-in-Council
Ceded and Conquered Provinces (formally part of Bengal)	Allahabad   	Governor-General-in-Council
Province of British India (1910)                            	Headquarters	Chief Administrative Officer
Burma                                                       	Rangoon     	Lieutenant-Governor
Bengal                                                      	Calcutta    	Lieutenant-Governor
Madras Presidency                                           	Madras      	Governor-in-Council
Bombay Presidency (including present-day Sindh in Pakistan) 	Bombay      	Governor-in-Council
United Provinces of Agra and Oudh                           	Lucknow     	Lieutenant-Governor
Central Provinces (including Berar)                         	Nagpur      	Chief Commissioner
Punjab (including present-day regions in India and Pakistan)	Lahore      	Lieutenant-Governor
Assam and East Bengal (including present-day Bangladesh)    	Dacca       	Chief Commissioner
;See also
*British rule in India
*Company rule in India
*British Raj
*British rule in Burma
*Provinces of British India
*Princely States
*Portuguese India
*French India
*Dutch India
*Danish India
--------------------------------------------------------------------
===Discussion===
I would suggest removing mention of Nepal and Bhutan. The British had influence over Nepal and Bhutan, and Nepal and Bhutan should be treated like any other princely state in the region. Nepal was formally recognized as independent only in 1924, and Bhutan was a suzerain state. Yes, add all: Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that.  There is one further problem: after 1858, British India was specifically used to mean only those regions in India that directly governed by the British (in other words British India = Provinces of British India) and not the Princely States, and we need to say that somewhere.  The is how the term is and was used for the period 1858 to 1947; see for example the dab page British rule in India.  And for that reason there is also a problem with the words "direct influence."  The British had influence over the princely states (see indirect rule) but the states were not a part of "British India."  I have further amended the text.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask a question: If in 1910, I had to travel by train from Bombay to Calcutta, would I need some sort of identification (visa/passport) each time I crossed over a princely state? And did the kingdoms have an independent foreign, political and military policy? IMO they were puppet states. Visiting the Federalism issue once again? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, it was called an Empire. And empires are a collection of kingdoms under an emperor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  No passport was needed, and neither was any needed for a resident of a princely state to travel into British India.  Gandhi, after all, was born in one.  More importantly, all residents of the Indian Empire, whether from British India, or Princely States, were issued the same passport, which said British Indian Passport on the top, and Indian Empire on the bottom.  (I have a picture somewhere, which I'll post later.)  The term "British India," however, was never used for the princely states.  Although it is used loosely today in the press to distinguish pre-1947 India from the post, all history books and scholarly papers are careful to use it in this limited meaning.  See, for example, Encarta's page for "British India"; it simply says, "collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."  This, unfortunately, is not exactly correct either, since it only refers to the usage of "British India" after 1858; however, it shows that we can't use it to refer to all of India.  Sorry to be a little pedantic, but such is the usage.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost good to go: 'In 1858...Empire of India is too long and needs a split. "supervised" is a little vague in this context, how about another more descriptive term? Add Princely states to the see alsos, and you can suggest a good map to go with the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: This text which were ruled by Indian rulers, but which depended on the British for their foreign relations, defence, and communications. suggests a very narrow relationship. How about   ...that gave the British Empire suzerainty over their kingdoms in exchange for political and administrative autonomy.  Or is the wording getting redundant? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that sounds good.  I've changed it to something similar.  I agree that in essence these states were what one scholar called, "puppet sovereignties."    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: (Comment) Not a deal breaker because I think it more important to resolve this rather than nit pick, but I'm not sure that English East India Company was able to take advantage of the disorder in the regional Indian kingdoms to achieve territorial gains for itself rightly belongs here. The British India page should confine itself to stating obvious facts and I'm not sure that (a) this qualifies as a fact and (b) that the company meddling started that early). Also, my history is obviously murky, but, if the EEIC started to take over territory in 1615, then what was under British governance between 1608 and 1615? (My understanding always was that Madras was the first colony and that was not till the 1630s(?) or so. Is it generally acceptable to use the term British India to any parts of India prior to that?). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Yeah.  I guess we weren't paying attention.  I will check the sources for all your points.  Thanks!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be a grammar freak, but I think replacing instances of "which" with "that" will make the text more tight. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tweaks

message: I would suggest removing mention of Nepal and Bhutan. The British had influence over Nepal and Bhutan, and Nepal and Bhutan should be treated like any other princely state in the region. Nepal was formally recognized as independent only in 1924, and Bhutan was a suzerain state. Yes, add all: Portuguese, French, Dutch and Danish India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that.  There is one further problem: after 1858, British India was specifically used to mean only those regions in India that directly governed by the British (in other words British India = Provinces of British India) and not the Princely States, and we need to say that somewhere.  The is how the term is and was used for the period 1858 to 1947; see for example the dab page British rule in India.  And for that reason there is also a problem with the words "direct influence."  The British had influence over the princely states (see indirect rule) but the states were not a part of "British India."  I have further amended the text.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask a question: If in 1910, I had to travel by train from Bombay to Calcutta, would I need some sort of identification (visa/passport) each time I crossed over a princely state? And did the kingdoms have an independent foreign, political and military policy? IMO they were puppet states. Visiting the Federalism issue once again? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, it was called an Empire. And empires are a collection of kingdoms under an emperor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  No passport was needed, and neither was any needed for a resident of a princely state to travel into British India.  Gandhi, after all, was born in one.  More importantly, all residents of the Indian Empire, whether from British India, or Princely States, were issued the same passport, which said British Indian Passport on the top, and Indian Empire on the bottom.  (I have a picture somewhere, which I'll post later.)  The term "British India," however, was never used for the princely states.  Although it is used loosely today in the press to distinguish pre-1947 India from the post, all history books and scholarly papers are careful to use it in this limited meaning.  See, for example, Encarta's page for "British India"; it simply says, "collective designation of the 17 Indian provinces formerly under direct British administration, as distinguished from the more autonomous regions called the Native States of India."  This, unfortunately, is not exactly correct either, since it only refers to the usage of "British India" after 1858; however, it shows that we can't use it to refer to all of India.  Sorry to be a little pedantic, but such is the usage.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost good to go: 'In 1858...Empire of India is too long and needs a split. "supervised" is a little vague in this context, how about another more descriptive term? Add Princely states to the see alsos, and you can suggest a good map to go with the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: This text which were ruled by Indian rulers, but which depended on the British for their foreign relations, defence, and communications. suggests a very narrow relationship. How about   ...that gave the British Empire suzerainty over their kingdoms in exchange for political and administrative autonomy.  Or is the wording getting redundant? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that sounds good.  I've changed it to something similar.  I agree that in essence these states were what one scholar called, "puppet sovereignties."    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: (Comment) Not a deal breaker because I think it more important to resolve this rather than nit pick, but I'm not sure that English East India Company was able to take advantage of the disorder in the regional Indian kingdoms to achieve territorial gains for itself rightly belongs here. The British India page should confine itself to stating obvious facts and I'm not sure that (a) this qualifies as a fact and (b) that the company meddling started that early). Also, my history is obviously murky, but, if the EEIC started to take over territory in 1615, then what was under British governance between 1608 and 1615? (My understanding always was that Madras was the first colony and that was not till the 1630s(?) or so. Is it generally acceptable to use the term British India to any parts of India prior to that?). --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Yeah.  I guess we weren't paying attention.  I will check the sources for all your points.  Thanks!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be a grammar freak, but I think replacing instances of "which" with "that" will make the text more tight. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I would also suggest we add a table what lists out the Presidencies and the provinces in 1858 and 1947. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing: In addition to British India, and the Princely states, India also consisted of the Portuguese and French enclaves. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added text about Portuguese and French enclaves.  As for the tables, I'm wondering if it will be too much for this page; i.e. the tables or maps showing the provinces are in: Provinces of British India (which I have added to See also), Company rule in India#Expansion and territory, and British Raj#Administrative Divisions of British India.  I guess I'm wondering if having tables here as well will be an overkill, and might dissuade people from going to the Provinces of British India page.  Let me know what you think. By the way, some of the province pages themselves are being expanded; see Ravichandar84's great work in Madras Presidency.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of the redundancy, but it would be more useful to a casual reader to understand the subdivisions of the area marked as "British India" at one glance rather than making the user navigate away to British Raj or British rule in India for the same information. The tables do not have to be the same. It can be >> Presidency || Headquarters || Administrator <<. Good enough information for a reader at a single glance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplified tables make sense.  I've added two tables.  They are for 1805 and 1910 (and not 1857 and 1947) for a number of reasons: there wasn't that much difference between the provinces in terms of area between 1857 and 1947 (the former had Lower Burma, whereas the latter didn't); the accompanying map of British expansion refers to 1805 and 1910; early 19th century is when the Company became dominant; 1910 is special not only because Burma was included, but Bengal had been partitioned; and by 1947 the number of provinces had multiplied by name (i.e. Sind had separated from Bombay, East Bengal had reunited with West-, Bihar, Orissa had separated from Bengal) and the table might become daunting.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good enough, and time for a transfer to the mainspace. We can also tag this article as "A"-grade  because of the extensive peer-review it has undergone. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for everyone's efforts.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've missed some critical requirements for A-class 1. References 2. Wiki links 3. Bibliography can't hurt too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some more suggestions

message: Great work! Thanks f&f and nichalp for an excellent job. Now, a couple of suggestions (surprise!):
#Is this strictly correct: the East India Company was able to achieve only small territorial gains for itself in and around its factory towns. The implication is that the EIC was actively seeking to gain territory from early days on and, while this was true later, I'm not sure if it correctly characterizes the goals of the company.
# Perhaps we could say By the early 19th century, the British had become the most powerful political and military entity on the subcontinent, except for small Portuguese and French enclaves rather than the enclaves featuring later in the para (they are a wee bit orphaned out there). 
#The Burma part is still not totally correct. At the end of 1826, Arakan and the Mergui archipelago were part of British India. At the end of the second Burmese war (1853), the provinces of Pegu, Irrawaddy, Tenassarim, i.e., all of lower Burma became a part of British India (a huge area). 1886 brought upper Burma into the fold with the British maintaining the structure of the Ava empire, i.e., Mandalay went to India while the hill states (shans, kachins etc) became princely states. Technically, about half of Burma was already under the British between 1853 and 1886. May I suggest something along the following lines: The term British India also applied to British territory in Burma (present-day Myanmar) between 1826 and 1937 and included western Burma and the Mergui archipelago (1826-1937); Tenasserim, Pegu and the Irrawaddy Delta (1853-1937); and Upper Burma (1886-1937). 
:Hi RegentsPark, Thanks for your great comments.  I have amended the text in light of your comments.  1) has been taken care of in the new text; as for 2) there is really no reason to add "... except for ..." because by the early 19th century, both Goa and Pondicherry really existed at the pleasure of the British (in fact Dalhousie had taken Pond. and it wasn't returned to the French until 1816.)  As for Burma, I made a mistake, I didn't mean to imply that there was no change between 1824 and 1886; I have now corrected the statement.  I believe that in this article we shouldn't be mentioning names of smaller regions (and I have not done that at all in the main text, and only sparingly in the tables).  Let me know if this works.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I've corrected "most of Burma" to "almost two-thirds of Burma" since the ratio of the Karen, Shan etc. princely states in area to all of Burma was approximately 67,000sqmiles/170,000sqmiles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I still think that the French and Portuguese colony is orphaned but can't think of a better way to put it. Also, perhaps all of Burma is ok anyway since the hill states were ruled in the same sense as the princely states and we're assuming a broader definition of British India. One last quibble, the last sentence says "British influence" but really refers to the areas of British influence that were ruled by India (since it obviously doesn't include the middle eastern, se asian, and african territories ruled by the British). The current formulation does seem correct in the context of the article, but could understate the extent of British influence in the world. It may seem hard to imagine, but there are many people (in the UK, for example) who are clueless about the extent to which Britain ruled the world! Would it make sense to say "the territory under the influence of British India"?--Regents Park (RegentsPark) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (BTW, I really like the write-up. Clear and to the point!) --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I haven't got to your points, but I did show the page to a "non-expert" and they were completely puzzled by what they called the complicated sentences!  So, I've shortened the sentences into more manageable bits.  Let me know if this is better.  Also, please feel free to make the edits yourself.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: holding its territory in trust for the British Crown.' is a little too wordy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text 

message: I'm thinking we add a sidebar. This will eliminate future confusion between the usage of the terms: British India, British Raj etc. This is my idea:
*Colonial India (template title)
**British India
***British rule in India
****Company rule in India
****British Raj
***Provinces of India
**Princely States
**French India
**Portuguese India
**Dutch India
**Danish India
-------------------------------------------------------------
:The template is a great idea, but in some ways it complicates things a little.  I am personally uncomfortable with British India being the "intro page," as it were, for the British Empire in India-related articles.  The reason is that Company rule in India, or British Raj (=Empire of India after 1876) refer to more than just the governing of British India.  For example, British Raj (regardless of the meaning of raj) = India 1858-1947, in most historical discussions (both in the books in the "further reading" section of this page, and in the :Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia (or :Template:History of India) that accompanies all South Asian or Indian history articles); similarly, Company rule in India is the closest article to India (1757–1858).  Certainly, there is no other history article that deals with all of India during the years 1800-1857; and in many discussions, as in Britannica or the Library of Congress (India profile), and most of the further reading books, Company Raj = India (1757–1858)).  In my view, the "intro" should be the dab page, British rule in India, and the order: 
*Colonial India (template title)
**British rule in India
***East India Company (1600–1756)
***Company rule in India (1757–1857)
***British Raj (also Crown rule in India) (1858–1947)
***British India
****Provinces of British India
***Princely States
**French India
**Portuguese India
**Dutch India
**Danish India
:That brings us to the overlap between the "dab" page British rule in India and British India, and the fact that the new "intro" page (British rule in India) is not that user friendly, but perhaps we can deal with that another time (in the manner suggested earlier by user:Peterkingiron: i.e. to have a paragraph each  on the three time periods: 1612-1756; 1757-1858; and 1858-1947, perhaps to rename it British Empire in India, which currently redirects to British Raj or come up with another name.  Let me know what you think.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I just checked the British Empire page; it has three sections (among others): a) the "First British Empire," b) the "Second British Empire," and c) "The Imperial century."  a) and b) and part of c), in relation to India, coincide with East India Company (1612–1757) and Company rule in India (1757–1858).  Therefore, using the expression "British Empire in India" for the entire period 1612 to 1947 makes eminent sense and is in keeping with the British Empire page.  (Right now the "British Empire in India" page redirects to "British Raj" because of the formal similarity between British Empire in India and Empire of India.)  So, I am suggesting that we remove the redirect in British Empire in India and move the contents of British rule in India to it, with the eventual intention of expanding it as described above.  Sorry for these complications, but if we get it right now, there will be less headache later.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought India formally became a part of the empire in 1858. Are there good enough sources that mention India was a part of the British empire before 1858? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, India began functioning as an Empire in 1858.  It was the only colony that was an "Empire."  But, the term "British Empire" is used to refer to all colonies (Australia, Jamaica, etc. as well).  Indian outposts/territory (in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) were considered to be part of the British Empire.  See for example the recent five-volume Oxford History of the British Empire.  Here is volume 1, Origins of the Empire.  P. J. Marshall's article, "English in Asia" is mostly about EIC and India in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.  So, I think we can refer to the period 1612–1947, and refer to all entities that were affected by the British encounter under the rubric "British empire in India." (See also below.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Nichalp, If you want to do it that way, then I'd say the order should be slightly different.  It should be done by historical order.  Portuguese India should be on top, since they were in India for a hundred years before the British arrived.  Also, since the Princely States were mostly a creation of the British and they weren't really "colonial powers," they shouldn't be in the first group.  I would order it as:
*By colonial powers
**Portuguese India
**British India
**French India
**Dutch India
**Danish India
----
*British rule/empire in India
**East India Company (I would add EIC here, since there is no other representation of the period 1608-1757)
**Company rule in India
**British Raj
**Dominion of India(? suggestion) This is a tricky one, in part because the Indian nationalists (Nehru, Patel) were keen that India not be thought of as a dominion in the same sense as Canada or Australia.  After all, 1947 is not called "dominion status," (the kind that nationalists had been agitating for until 1929) but rather (purna swaraj) "independence."  By mid-1948, all British presence was gone. Also, (for other reasons) it was formally called the Union of India (in contrast, say, to Dominion of Pakistan).  Perhaps, it should be added to the :Template:History of India, in "Post-Independence" right before "Political Integration ..." (not in :Template:HistoryOfSouthAsia though).
----
*British Raj/Indian Empire (they're really the same, see below)
**British India Provinces of British India (also, I would change the name of this page from "Provinces of India" to "Provinces of British India." 
**Princely States 
 
This division—between the provinces and princely states—began in 1858 before the Indian Empire was formally signed into existence in 1876/77.  I should say that we shouldn't make a big deal of the "Indian Empire," because it was just a ploy of Disraeli's (and the Tories) to suck up to the Queen; Gladstone (and the liberals) were dead set against it and made fun of it. All that changed was the Queen's grandiose title and a few other matters of pomp and circumstance.  In fact, if you look at one of the picture captions of Bihar famine of 1873–74, Victoria was already being referred to as "Empress" by the press in 1873.  The region was mostly just called "India."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm fine by this. Except though "British rule/empire in India" might look cluttered. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now moved British rule in India to British Empire in India (the new dab page).  I hope I did it the right way. :)  So, we only need British Empire in India in the sidebar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, British rule in India was a much better title, as the British were in India long before there was any British Empire. Strawless (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar 

message: How about taking a shot at FAC and resolving this once and for all? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am working on Company rule in India and British Raj and getting those to FA is my current goal.  I am assuming you don't mean this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this page. It's going to test the WP:WIAFA standards. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean there is no minimum length requirement?  (Or, I guess you are saying this will test it?) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This will test it. :) There was considerable debate last month on the length of an FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to do the nomination? The present form was your idea; also, you might have a better idea of how to sell it in terms of WP:WIAFA.  Do we need the side bar before the nomination? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure, I'd write the nomination. I would prefer if you and RegentsPark were co-noms. Its a joint collaboration. Would you be able to put up the sidebar? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'm happy to be a co-nom.  I'm happy to attempt the side bar too.  I'll use one of the existing ones for a template.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the sidebar.  Feel free to make improvements.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to make all the flags appear in one row? And Colonial India aligned centre with a background so that it stands out? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done so.  Will tweak colors more later.  (My better half is screaming at me to feed the cats.  :)) Have removed the flags of Nepal and Bhutan since they weren't really a part of Colonial India.  Also, that way the sidebar doesn't become too wide.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I'm also waiting for RegentsPark to log in. I'll write the pitch tomorrow, it has to be carefully written to negate all oppose attempts. I saw something on some non-cooperation movement on your talk page as you uh, forgot to once feed the cats. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: PS (added later in reply to KH2's post above and RP's below).  I've made the contrast more subtle.  This is the best I can do without getting a serious eye strain.  :) Please feel free to improve.  As for RegentsPark's post below, what is a "regular bottom"? Not sure.  Do you mean do away with the thin line?  As for mustachioed men please see :Image:Hunting party mandalay1885.jpg (Note pictures don't have to be complimentary to the Empire.  (In this case though some of the Indians standing around the two British men are profession "tribal" (Bhil?) hunters who were often taken along for their keen tracking abilities.  In other words, they are not all "servants.")  Also, please check out the picture in Great Famine of 1876–78.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS I've also added pictures to the British rule section of History of Burma, starting with the section History_of_Burma#War_with_Britain_and_the_fall_of_Burma, and India rebellion of 1857. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should make it a regular bottom of the page template. I'm happy to be a co-nom, though, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what a co-nom does! I think the article does satisfy almost all the criteria for FA status but the main issues will be 1b and 2b because the other India articles are important for comprehensiveness. Also, it would be nice to add some iconic photographs from the period. Perhaps one of those group photographs of mustachioed men that is so iconic of the Raj.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: See this photo that I filched from David Gilmour's book (the photo is no longer copyrighted). :Image:Henry _cotton.jpg. The copy itself is not great but something like that perhaps.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That image seems a little distorted on the margins (the guy on the left seems too tall).  However, if there is consensus to add images, there are tons of images that I've added to Company rule in India, British Raj, Third Anglo-Burmese War, British rule in Burma.  (There is also one in Provinces of India).  Why don't you go through them and select a few?  Might I propose that we have a gallery of four images (similar to the ones in Company rule in India) and no more, chosen (if possible) from the above pages.  This way, there will be a connection, via shared images, with the other "British Empire in India"-related articles.  On the other hand, there is also a case to be made for choosing new images ...  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered that there is an article called Colonial India.  It will probably need to be in better shape.  Could someone look at it?  I've linked it to the template title.  (It looks relevant.)  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: How is this image: =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice image - but not British enough. I'll look through the other articles (on Monday - my two brats make concentrating on nanny-less weekends difficult!) but I think I know the perfect image. A scene from Byculla station on the Bombay-Thane line soon after it was opened. It is in the book "Railways of the Raj" and has to be copyright free by now! I'll see if I can dig it up later this afternoon.--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 17:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: PS Will be away for a few days. Not keeping too well. A wikibreak should do me good =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature status 

message: The following is inconsistent: "British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under British governance between 1612 and 1947.[1]" The citation clearly says that the term us used to span three periods and that during the first period the Company was a trading corporation - it didn't govern any territory for much of this period. Thehalfone (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, of course, and in fact in one of the early versions of this page, we made the distinction between late-eighteenth century (and later) usage (when "British India" began to mean territory) and earlier usage (when it meant "the British in India" or sometimes the "British nation in India").  That version has references as well.   Will find it and fix appropriately.  Thanks for the reminder.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one of the issues is that we're hedging our way around the term. It appears, from reading the article, that pre-mutiny British India is an informal term and consists of the areas directly under Company Rule - presumably the presidencies, punjab, oudh (though that was, I think, incorporated into Bengal), Lower Burma (also, I think, a part of Bengal), Jhansi, Gwalior (where did they fit in?) and various other lapsed states. After the mutiny, the formal term applied to the parts directly ruled by the British and the definition is clearer. But then, near the end, it lapses back into British influence (Burma to Afghanistan). So, the question is, is the article restricting itself to the formal definition or to the areas controlled by the British, directly or indirectly? Also, a question, do the numbers 54% of the area and 77% of the population include Burma? The text implies not, though not clearly, since Burma is addressed separately in the next paragraph. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only have a minute, so I'll be brief.  Yeah, it needs more clarity, I'll go over it again tomorrow.  No, not the Mutiny, but but Plassey or rather Warren Hastings i.e. the the late 18th century (1770 onwards) is when British India begins to be used formally for Company-ruled territories.  There's really not that much difference between pre- and post- 1857 in terms of relations to the princely states.  The subsidiary alliances (indirect rule) had been formed during EIC rule.  British India was never used for areas of indirect rule, pre- or post- 1857.  Will look into the stats tomorrow.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've paused the FA nomination for now till this is resolved. Also went over the text, and I think the Subdivisions needs a better lead. (needs to explain the difference between a presidency and province, and the types of administrative officers) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not too comfortable with the term "For usage," It reads odd. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Will attend to these details later today.  By the way, should Indian rebellion of 1857 be a part of the template (between Company rule in India   and British Raj)?  It would seem appropriate (in my view).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. It's more of an event than an era, and the will overlap with the history of India timeline template. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. That makes sense.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance 

message: I should like to suggest that it would be a good idea to have a specific section of the article called something like Extent and population, with the aim of summarizing the growth of British India in size and population over the centuries.</br> 
In the mean time, the information in the article seems to have changed. What was here before had online citations to detailed figures, which I believe I transferred myself from the Talk page. The lead now says "British India constituted a significant portion of India both in area and population; in 1910, for example, it covered approximately 54% of the area and included over 77% of the population." I am doubtful about the 54% figure, and the citation for it is to pp. 59-61 of volume 4 of the Imperial Gazetteer, but after checking that source what I can find there is "Information with respect to the area, population... regarding the Native States will be found in the Appendix... The area outside British dominion is enormous (more than 824,000 square miles), but the population (68,000,000) is vastly inferior to that of British India." I do not think that supports "...in 1910, for example, it covered approximately 54% of the area and included over 77% of the population". (By the way, it is not quite clear to me what comparison is intended in "of the area" and "of the population", which perhaps mean the area and population of the whole of India, either including or excluding Burma?)</br> I should prefer it if the previous information and citations could be reinstated, or else other citations to figures provided. Part of what we had before was "In 1925, the Literary Digest's 1925 Atlas of the World and Gazetteer reported under 'India': "The term British India includes the districts subject to British law, the area of which is 1,093,074 square miles. The Indian States or Agencies having political relations with the Indian Government have an area of 709,555 square miles, thus making the total area of India and Dependencies 1,802,629 square miles."1925 World Atlas and Gazetteer published by Funk & Wagnalls, online at scribd.com, accessed 4 September 2008 Strawless (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is \dfrac{1800000-824000}{1800000}\times 100?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of British India at various times

message: The lead begins at the moment "British India is the term used to describe the territory on the Indian subcontinent that was under the tenancy or the sovereignty of either the English East India Company or the British Crown...". I do not think it is intended that tenancy should link through to Leasehold estate? I would suggest that this passage needs rewriting to something like "...in the possession of the English East India Company or, after 1858, under the sovereignty of the British Crown..." Would that be better?   
With regard to a later statement, "It also included the Colony of Aden in the Persian Gulf...", Aden is not in the Persian Gulf, so I would suggest deleting "in the Persian Gulf".
To say near the beginning "...on the Indian subcontinent..." doesn't seem quite right, and, as just noted, the article goes on to mention Aden. Would it be better to say "...on the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian Peninsula..."
To say "...India was thereafter directly ruled by the British Crown as a colony of the United Kingdom, and officially known after 1876 as the Empire of India" seems to me to be not quite right, at least on the first point. Some time ago, at Talk:British Raj, we agreed that India had not been a "colony" and as a result took the word 'colony' out of the British Raj infobox ; on what is said about "Empire of India", clearly, there was an Empire of India after 1876, but I am wondering in what sense that term was the "official" name of India? I have looked through the pages of the Imperial Gazetteer cited (vol. II 1908, pp. 514-530) and I can't find either of those statements there, but perhaps my eye has missed something, it is a very long passage which is cited.
Strawless (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE, with regard to the citation "vol. II 1908, pp. 514-530", I have just checked the title page of Volume II of the Imperial Gazetteer, and its date is 1909. Strawless (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like me to post a scan of the title page of the 1908 edition?  Please see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about the lead