Talk:Economy of India under the British Raj

Move of Economy of British India to Economy of India under the British Raj

I see that Fowler's unproposed and undiscussed move of this article from Economy of British India to Economy of India under the British Raj, and the unlinking of British India in the lead, follows my referring to the page at Talk:British India. But what is the article to be about? Clearly, British India had an economy, but did the whole of India, including the Princely states, have a single economy? Xn4 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Google gives 1890 hits for "Economy of British India" but none for "Economy of India under the British Raj". I see Fowler has also created a new page with the even more comical title of Economy of India under Company rule, clearly seeking to pre-empt the obvious point that Economy of India under the British Raj can't deal with the years before 1858. Clearly Economy of India under Company rule can only refer to British India, as the Company ruled nothing else. Xn4 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read my reply to your post on Talk:British India. Of the 35 references I have added to this page, only one refers to "British India;" the remaining mention only India, i.e. the Indian Empire, i.e. the British Raj. Please don't conduct these random discussions (and forum shop) in two different places; it is enough to do it on Talk:British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your Google hits, there are only 33 Google links for "Economy of British India" (you have to enclose the title within quotes), whereas there are over 6,620 links for "Economy of Colonial India". As I have already, indicated on Talk:British India, the term used in modern historiography is "Colonial India." I am happy to change the name of the page to "Economy of Colonial India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Something is indeed wrong with Xn4's Google search, but taking out the quotation marks gives more than nine million hits and not 1,890. That, of course, is a misleadingly huge number. For me, curiously, searching "Economy of colonial India" gives only 4,850 hits and not 6,620. I get two hits for "Economy of India under the British Raj" (one to this Wikipedia page and another to a page linked to it).

However, Xn4 is surely right in principle. To me, the "colonial India" in "Economy of colonial India" cannot include the whole subcontinent. The princely states were definitely not colonies, and India itself was not a colony, as discussed at Talk:British Raj. It seems that better continuity and applicability of sources would be achieved at Economy of British India or "Economy of colonial India", which seemingly have the same meaning. There is also a mismatch between this new title and the other new title, Economy of India under Company rule, as they appear to address different areas. On the notion of splitting such an economic history of any part of India at 1858, I can see no obvious reason for it. If there were a moment of sea change comparable to the Government of India Act 1858 in the political history of India, then it would surely be the Charter Act 1833 and the Company's loss of its remaining monopolies. I also agree with whoever said that Economy of India under Company rule is a comical title. I cannot imagine anyone writing a book or an article for a journal with such a title. Strawless ^(talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion came to an end because User:Strawless was judged to be a sockpuppet of User:Xn4 and both accounts have been blocked. --PBS (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear to be about the economy

What it says in the title. This appears to be a litany of woes rather than discussing how people made their living in British India. British India contains far more information about the economy of theRaj, so I propose basically improving this page by replacing its content with material taken from there.FOARP (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to have a very strong point of view and also lacks citations supporting the strong PoV. In particular the section on The absence of industrialisation during the colonial period reads like a polemic not an encyclopaedia.--Shimbo (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't just polemical, it's actually quite funny in places. I'm a particularly big fan of the more-recently added comments about the railway being "renowned for quality of construction since Indian metallurgy and labor were used" despite its reliance on Britain for "engineers and supposedly skilled craftsmen", and the sentences about the British being "held to justice" with the beheadings of arbitrarily selected soldiers! It almost feels like a shame to remove them.Dtellett (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed! Hubertgrove (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Weasel Words, Unscholarly Language and Non-POV in "Economic Impact of British Imperialism" Section

The section "Economic impact of British imperialism" is pitted with "Weasel Words" and non-"NPOV". It requires editing to make it impartial and citations to back up its assertions.

For example: "The issue was actually raised by conservative British politician Edmund Burke". Even if relevant, this is a political judgement, and it's very imprecise. Does the writer mean Burke - who wished the British to withdraw from its Indian colonies - was a laisser-faire conservative or a patriarchal conservative or a nationalist conservative? Does he mean a conservative by 19th Century standards or by those of the 21st Century?

For example, "(Economic Drain Theory)" - a citation is needed for this theory and a link to a definition.

For example, "P. J. Marshall, a British historian known for his work on the British empire" - these are classic weasel words and ask the question "By whom?"

For example, "P.J. Marshall...has a British revisionist interpretation of the view that the prosperity of the formerly being Mughal rule gave way to poverty and anarchy." Again, this is a highly partial political POV. The writer must define and justify "revisionist". Does he mean "marxist revisionist", "nationalist revisonist", "post-orientalist revisionist" etc. It seems the writer intends the word "revisionist" to somehow denigrate Marshall's work.

For example, "Instead of the more widely accepted account of the British as alien aggressors...". Again, the question is asked "By whom?". This sentence should be revised to indicate that Marshall's view may not be mainstream - and proper citation provided for that assertion.

There are many more examples I can cite. My conclusion is that this section needs to be properly rewritten and re-edited. I have added "Weasel Word" and citation requested notes in the text in the hope Wiki contributors will repair this section.Hubertgrove (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I largely agree with your assessment of the article's bias issue, but don't see any issues in describing the "Father of conservatism" as a conservative or PJ Marshall as a revisionist Dtellett (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be more specific than is perhaps necessary: Burke's status as 'father of conservatism' is not, I suggest, relevant here since in his statements and actions regarding India (eg. the prosecution of Warren Hastings) he took what we would generally agree to be be a 'liberal' attitude. As regards PG Marshall status as a 'revisionist'; there are many different historical interpretations and valuations of the British engagement in India - these include Orientalist, Marxist, Economic etc. There is no settled opinion; PG Marshall's interpretation is just one of many. To call him a 'revisionist', in this context, is just an attempt to denigrate his opinion as being by implication reactionary. Anyway that is my opinion. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hubertgrove seems unaware that the consensus of historians considers Burke a conservative and P. J. Marshall an expert on the British Empire. He is unaware of the meaning of "Historical revisionism" in historiography (it means to challenge the previously established viewpoint.) He misunderstands "weasel words" as used in Wikipedia. He misunderstands the 3R rule. He falsely thinks NPOV rule applies to the RS (it only applies to Wiki editors). 30 minutes spent with Wikipedia's relevant articles will solve his problems. Rjensen (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique and amendments which I will take on board. I accept your re-edit but have made some minor changes (including citation of new sources) which I hope expands and develops your points. Hubertgrove (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Change in the title - "Economy of India under the British Raj"

I think that the title of the post "Economy of India under the British Raj" should be changed to "Economy of India under the British Rule" because the word Raj seems to sound like it is of Hindi language but the post is in English language. Sarika00987654321 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1 AD to 2003 AD Historical Trends in global distribution of GDP China India Western Europe USA Middle East.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Development by British in India

Development by British in India 206.84.238.21 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

"But the truth is British rule demolished the richest country in the world on the factors of racism, colonising, suppression and violence." How can one claim to know 'the truth' so definitively, when the rest of the introduction makes it extremely clear that it is controversial whether Britain actively kept India poor? Raptorrapture42 (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Modern polemics always approach everything with the expression "the truth is" - it saves them from having to do critical research which might entertain having more than one point of view in the mind at the same time. A practical impossibility when the mind is made up and the conclusion can't wait to burst onto the page. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:4517:1615:F8F4:5F40 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of "Proportion"

It is strange to see a discussion of the decline of India's proportion of world trade that does not take into account the fact that a proportion is a fraction, and a fraction has an enumerator and a denominator. If the denominator increases and the enumerator does not increase proportionately, the fraction will become smaller. In the period in question the denominator, i.e. total world GDP, increased enormously, so the Indian fraction became smaller. This is not necessarily a sign of impoverishment in India, but could be merely a sign of growth elsewhere, e.g. notably the USA. It is fully compatible with India having become richer in the period, as seems to have happened. Liscaraig (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Missing information

Why didn't this article mention about what did the british do to export surplus earning from 1765 to 1945 and how they maintained stringent protectionist policy against Asian textiles from 1700 to 1846 2409:40D1:8C:E839:8CD3:33FF:FEEE:5C5E (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)