Talk:Company rule in India

Name

Hi. I would like to ask that this article be re-named to British East India Company rule in India, since very few people outside South Asia are aware of the British East India Company and how it managed to take over an entire subcontinent.

Map?

Is there a map available that can depict the EIC's maximum extent (till 1857)?

Nawab of Bengal - Mir Jafar (Jaffar) - Harvard citation

I have reverted to my edit which matches statements made in the cited text regarding the cession of revenues by Mir "Jaffar", the "puppet" Nawab of Bengal: "Mir Jaffar ceded the revenues of the 24-Parganas, south of Calcutta, to the company" (Bose and Jalal 2004, 47). Information regarding his instalment as the Nawab of Bengal matches the information at Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daulah, Mir Jafar, and Battle of Plassey, thereby retaining consistency of information across the pages. Correspondence is welcome (though may have a short delay in reply).Te Karere (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have edited back out many of the changes that Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) reverted. I kept but made amendments to some edits by Lahgum (talk · contribs) per the listed citations. I am no expert on this topic, so could not make a judgement about the language edits of Sheila1988 (talk · contribs). Please feel free to use this Talk page to discuss any changes you think would help this article work. Te Karere (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am officially on vacation. I have promised my wife to stay away from Wikipedia until the new year and my user page proclaims this as well. I am down in the sunroom of our house in the middle of the night because some of our cats were fighting. If that weren't enough to promote sleep, there is also a nor'easter raging outside.

I reverted your edits and those of the others because I had judged them not to be encyclopedic. Per WP:BRD, you should have taken to the talk page first and attempted to establish a consensus for the rewording, especially in a lead that has stood in this article for over ten years, before reinstating your version.

The lead uses the word "variously." That means there are various interpretations about when the rule began, and what it was that happened that was so instrumental to be cast as a beginning. Bose and Jalal is just one book in one of the most worked on fields in modern history anywhere. Plassey is an iconic event in that history. The phrasing "surrendered his dominions" is in fact a summary-style paraphrase of many things that happened: Siraj ud daulah lost his feudal dominions, which had the stamp of the infirm Mughal emperor in Delhi; the British from that point on became a politically dominant force on the subcontinent; they became a militarily dominant force on the subcontinent, exploiting the new European techniques of infantry warfare; Bengal became a sponsored state (it wasn't just Mir Jafar, it was, more importantly, the bankers such as Jagath Seth who had forced Jafar's hand) for a few years. To reduce all that to what you have written is unencyclopedic to my mind. That is all I will say before I head back upstairs. I won't return to this either until 2020. I am sounding out @El C and RegentsPark: who watch over this page.

As for "Hindustani," it was another name for Urdu. Here is David Lelyveld in his seminal article, "Colonial knowledge and the fate of Hindustani:"

"The earlier grammars and dictionaries made it possible for the British government to replace Persian with vernacular languages at the lower levels of judicial and revenue administration in 1837, that is, to standardize and index terminology for official use and provide for its translation to the language of the ultimate ruling authority, English. For such purposes, Hindustani was equated with Urdu, as opposed to any geographically defined dialect of Hindi and was given official status through large parts of north India. Written in the Persian script with a largely Persian and, via Persian, an Arabic vocabulary, Urdu stood at the shortest distance from the previous situation and was easily attainable by the same personnel. In the wake of this official transformation, the British government began to make its first significant efforts on behalf of vernacular education. The earliest controversies over Hindi versus Urdu apparently took place among the British because some officials were anxious to uproot the Mughal gentry by replacing Urdu with a still unformulated standard of Hindi."

So, the official languages were English and Persian from 1773 until 1837, and English and Urdu from 1837 until the Company's dissolution in 1858. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Fowler&fowler. I hope you are having a lovely vacation. I, however, am afraid much of these changes go beyond the scope of my knowledge in this area, which is admittedly, rather rudimentary. Perhaps RegentsPark can offer actual insights. But if they or someone else doesn't, I'm afraid that telling Te Karere to observe WP:BRD or WP:ONUS is a bit problematic if you are doing so, basically, in absentia. Unfortunately, you might have to wait until your 2020 return to properly address some of the issues that you are raising here. As you well know, I feel that Wikipedia owes you a great debt for your immense accomplishments in the topic area of India, overall, so I hope this doesn't discourage you too much. All the best, El_C 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm traveling with very poor internet connectivity (takes a while for a page to load). But, should have better connectivity next week and will stop by and take a look. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) for the response. It is good to see you bringing your expertise to the Talk page. I have added no new reference sources to this page (though I did add a page number for one and URL for another). Hence, my initial edit was undertaken to conform the sentence with the existing citation. Nonetheless, I completely agree with you that the cited reference of Bose and Jalal is likely one of very many on this topic. The suggestion that you made as a "summary-style paraphrase" (versus an "unencyclopedic" addition) may have secondary sources of note. Although it is generally worth considering edits that are consistent across related articles, when you (or any other editors) are available, perhaps alternative citations may be proposed? I have not reinstated the language edits, so will leave to others with greater knowledge than I. Have a good vacation. Te Karere (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Medicine

Should there be something about medical matters? Seadowns (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes there should (science, public health, etc., as well). I had written something 12 years ago, which I will have to dust off. Please give me a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

PS Meanwhile you could read Doji bara famine and Agra famine of 1837–1838. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Some books

. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tag reason

The Company Rule of India has attracted volumes of scholarship about the various means of exploitation effected by them. Interestingly, NONE finds a mention. The general reception of company rule has been immensely negative, with (what Kim Wagner calls) the balance-sheet approach being consigned to the dustbins of history since around the last two decades. This article is due a rewrite. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Social Reform + Education

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia editing so I understand why some may be sceptical of my edits. I have tried to add paragraphs of information about the social reform that came around in the 19th Century and afterwards with regards to the initial British appreciation for Indian culture to the contempt that occurred later on. I feel as though my edits have added to the information that is already under this subtitle as there is limited information in this particular subtitle as it is. The journal article I gathered my information from "The Impact of British Rule in India by M.S. Rajan has a lot of useful insight as to the social reform that occurred as the British Company began to collapse.

There was also valuable information about how the Indian National Congress was formed as this is a key part in the social reform that took place. I also mentioned how these British educated students were the ones who contributed to the uprising against British rule which I feel is a key part in the social reforms that took place.

I feel as though the information that I added blended well, and added onto the subsection and made the page more informative. If there is something in my approach that needs to change rather than the information not being of a good enough standard itself do let me know as I am keen to improve and add valuable contributions to the page.

Many Thanks

Heroicmernaids98 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Have already replied to your earlier post on User_talk:Fowler&fowler#East_India_Company. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"British influence in India" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British influence in India. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#British influence in India until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• India in 1837 and 1857, showing East India Company-governed territories in pink.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler Hi..!! Would you be able to look at the deletion nomination and the files. Seems like they are forgeries and ought to be deleted. Thanks for your help :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of error-ridden and redundant template

@WikiCleanerMan: Can you explain the following:

• Why a template called "British conquest of India" has been retitled "Company rule in India?" You are the editor who has changed its name, a few hours earlier today.
• What does British conquest of India, mean when the British (howsoever you define them) did not conquer two-fifths of India? (The two-fifths being the princely states)
• Company rule in India began in 1773 and ended in 1858. The template begins in 1686 and ends long after 1858.
• What is the point of adding a template that duplicates some sections of this article, dubiously and poorly?
• What especially is the point of forcing an error-ridden template into an article at such a prominent place, unless the point, or rather its motivation, is WP:Lead fixation. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Mind you, I don't question the right of the template to exist. I don't because Wikipedia is chock full of trash, and there is nothing I want to do about it. But I very much question the right of the template to be added to this article.

If you are driven to add the template to articles to give it relevance, please consider adding it to leads of British Empire, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, James II of England (the monarch in 1686) or Elizabeth I, the monarch in 1600 who recognized the East India Company as a joint stock company. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Good question. The template appears to span the entire British period, not just the company rule, so WikiCleanerMan's heading is incorrect. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The template does covers the prelude of British rule of India. British conquest of India redirect to this article hence the change of the title minus moving the name of the template page. The Anglo-Mughal War of 1686–1690, the first linked article on the campaignbox, involved the East India Company which states in the lead paragraph linking to this article, "The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent". I'm only going on what's presented, and for the box, nothing seems short of irrelevance, unless there is a recommendation to remove a portion of the articles from there. And the box does cover a widespread of British history in India and what later became Pakistan. But again if the template is refuse in regards to this article, then how is taking it to Tfd not since it was created as mainspace template for this article? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The template was created by user:Wareno on Valentine's day 2022 as "British Conquest of India," and accepted later the same day in this edit. For four and a half months it lay in that name, its range clearly much wider than Company rule in India, lasting from 1686 to 1939.

In you traipsed in, @WikiCleanerMan:, changed its name to "Company rule in India," in this edit of 2 July 2022, but not changing the time range 1686 to 1939. Yesterday Wareno changed the name of the template back to "British Conquest of India" in this edit. The template has little to do with Company rule in India, which lasted 100 years, this template spans 253 years. Of course it was no created for this article. Where does it say that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware of this discussion but I reject the notion that my template is "error-ridden and redundant" or that I was involved in its placement here, and the author who says it is just ignorant. The template is supposed to cover all British campaigns in the Indian subcontinent that led to the creation of the Raj, and that includes military interventions by both the East India Company (which was headquartered in England, in Great Britain, therefore it was British) as well as the Crown (which was also British). I don't see why the template should be removed from this article since it seems to fit the general theme, but I don't care either way. Wareno (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is error ridden. It also promotes a G. A. Hentyesque British POV. Please add it to the Colonial India page and save this high level page from its abuse. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And that too of all places in the lead, not collapsed at the end with "See also," so the a new reader will click out into the realm of imperial fantasy, to the never never land of gin and tonic, of Gunga Din and Soldiers Three. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Or you could try some British Empire page, right under the infobox and see how long your edit lasts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It won't last on this page because "British conquest of India" is a title that is both inaccurate (and 2/5th of India was not conquered) and POV, because bot the Raj and Company rule, were polities formed of political arrangements, not a list of military engagements. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Not delusional at all. No idea who Henty is or why he's important, but I've added it to that page like you asked.Wareno (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)