Talk:British Raj

Latest comment: 4 days ago by Slatersteven in topic What is “direct rule” without context?
Former good article nomineeBritish Raj was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 6, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
November 2, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2007, August 15, 2008, August 15, 2009, and August 15, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee


Size is 4,994,215 km^2 not 5,076,579 km^2

edit

the size of the british raj including India,Pakistan,Burma,Bangladesh is 4,994,215 km^2 but in the article it says 5,076,579 km^2, which is wrong.

And for info, nepal & Bhutan were not considered part of British 'Raj' as far as i know. WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Source please? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
what source? British raj was India , pakistan , bangladesh and burma , just see their current sizes and add them WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
On Wikipedia, we like sources for most of our changes, such as newspapers or books. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
British Raj wasn't just those four countries. It also consisted of Aden Colony (part of present-day Yemen), Somaliland (part of present-day Somalia) and other protectorates. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What happened to the flag?

edit

Shouldn't it be here? Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You could read the edit history to find out. Remsense ‥  23:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This has brought my curiosity too. I had always known this to be the British Indian flag, since in all wars, successor states and all other places when the flag icon of a country is shown, this is shown to be the flag of the British Raj.
Are you both discussing this to be the flag, or was it a different one? And please don't tell me to look at the edit history too. I don't want to get involved in the argument lore. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
How? There's thousands of edits to look through to find it. Articles are changed almost every day?Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just try it! Remsense ‥  23:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did and all i saw was you reverting me for no specified reason!--Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read a few more down Remsense ‥  23:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
How many? two hundred? Four hundred?--Sylvester Millner (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good grief, until you see mention of the flag! Remsense ‥  00:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
cant you just mention it here JingJongPascal (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
waa the flag removed because princely states had their own flag ,and the previous flag was of British india and not of entire Indian empire? JingJongPascal (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's in the edit history. Remsense ‥  07:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
i saw it and that's what I said,
But the Red Ensign has been used by the USA to show or represent India as part of the allies and also as part of the United Nations , but I guess they weren't official examples.
So in case of wars where we have to include British Raj, we will have to mention all the princely states and then British india seperatly right? Because most articles still use that flag for entire Indian empire JingJongPascal (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you be more obtuse? this is outright disruptive editing. Scuba 22:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The answer to someone's question has already been written and I said repeatedly that they should go read it, and I said where it was. If they can't do that, that doesn't inspire confidence that they'll engage with the argument if I give it to them to read in some other form. It's really not meaningfully different from pointing someone to discussions that occurred in the talk page archives. If you take that to be WP:POINTy then don't worry, since I've already given up here and wasn't planning on engaging further. Remsense ‥  23:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah buddy nobody wants to scroll through edits and try to decipher edit summaries. Just answer the question if you're going to answer at all. you're wasting everyone's time responding several times and not giving the actual answer. Scuba 02:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did it, and I wouldn't've suggested it if I thought it was that hard to do. Maybe the reason I've insisted on that is because the person that made the change articulated the reasons very clearly and I don't think I'd do a better job explaining it myself. Who knows. Remsense ‥  02:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
He's right, either provide an explanation or put it back on.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The explaination by @Remsense was that ---
That the Red Ensign was only used for British Ruled districts, and not for the entire "Indian Empire", as princely states had their own flag. JingJongPascal (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Japanese occupation as successor

edit

As other things like "Strait Settlements and etc." have been added I see no objection in adding japanese occupation of india, that is, Azad Hind. @Remenese JingJongPascal (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Remsense JingJongPascal (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
They did not occupy all of India. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
so? if we can add strait settlements, then why note azad hind or japanese occupation? JingJongPascal (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The straights settlements were a separate entry after 1867, they were not just an area under foreign occupation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Azad Hind is also a seperate entity. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not legally set up by the recognized legal authority. Also Azad Hind in fact only has limited powers allowed it, it was not a whole self-governing body. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
British Burma was also not a whole self governing body. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was a separate colony. I think now it is time for others I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a result of the Government of India Act, 1935, Burma after 1937 was no longer overseen by the Secretary of State for India, and the India Office. It had a separate Secretary of State and a Burma Office which lasted a little over a decade. Please see the first day cover I uploaded long ago.
 
Separation of Burma from the British Raj; note the stamps: India postage overprinted with "Burma."

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please also see: British_Raj#Government_of_India_Act,_1935 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
but it would be still considered a colony. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JingJongPascal But they were different colonies so a different entity and Azad Hind was short lived for 2 years and soon reconquered not suitable successor state. Edasf«Talk» 15:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is “direct rule” without context?

edit

WP editor Fowler&fowler excised my restriction in re the phrase “direct rule in India,” viz., “It is also called, … in contexts referencing the British government’s authority, direct rule in India.” F&f warned that I must “make the case for [my] POV on the talk page and garner a consensus for it.” But why should anyone have to garner a consensus here for something self-evident? “Direct rule in India” is meaningless without a reference to whose rule, as the three works cited in an endnote to this WP article make clear in their use of the phrase, for each tells specifically of the British assertion of it: “the British government assumed direct rule over India,” “direct rule of the Indian subcontinent by the British,” “the British Crown assumed direct colonial rule of India.” “Direct rule” is simply a stock phrase for the control of a body (government, corporation, or anything else) directly by some power. In the case of a nation, that power may be domestic or alien, colonial or endemic, broad or factional, autocratic or democratic, hereditary or acquired—it really doesn’t matter. N.B.: Strictly, the last of those three quotations I just mentioned uses the phrase “direct colonial rule of India,” which the WP article here takes as equivalent to “direct rule in India.” That is, the WP text’s wording isn’t quite the same, but it’s an understandable gloss, appropriate in context. Context matters! Similarly, “direct rule” of India or any other nation makes sense only in context, and those three historians used the phrase specifically of that by the British government. And that, as I made clear in explaining my edit, is why I posted it: for clarity’s sake. The POV I invoke is not mine but that of the quoted historians, who advance it explicitly in their wording. I also altered “Direct rule in India” to “direct rule in India,” removing the capital D. Bewilderingly to me, F&f likewise reverted that edit. But why? None of the three historians cited in this article for their use of the phrase capitalizes it, since there is no reason to do so. It might be capitalized if used as part of the title of an article or book—say (just to make one up), “You’re a Better Man Than I Am: A Critical Examination of Early British Direct Rule of India”—but should not be otherwise. (“Crown rule” is a different matter, as it references the British Crown, i.e., the monarchy, or state, and its reach.) F&f ought to be the one making the case for his or her own POV. Mucketymuck (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

We do not say direct rule by Indians, or by India. Read the second sentence of the lead, it says just this. And elsewhere in the body, the context is already there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply