Talk:Company rule in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original text of this article was copied from two separate articles. Please merge the first section with the second and third and remove redundant information as deemed necessary. --Jiang 03:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Maps

I have added maps of India during company rule. The maps are from 1765, 1805, 1837 and 1857. Since we have the maps, I was wondering if we still need the European settlements in coastal India map (at least in the main info box)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What about their atrocities ?

Is this article a joke ?. The British sacked, looted all the wealths of Bengal. Bengal at that time was called 'Paradise of Nations'. After taking over Bengal in 1757 (Battle of Polashi), they burned some and imposed sactions on the cloth industry of Bengal (present day Dhaka, Bangladesh). Eventually, resulting in complete extermination of the Bengal silk (which at that time were the finest in the world). Most of Bengal's wealth were looted by British. It has been mentioned in 'Wealth of Nation' by W. H. Hunter and many other scholarly books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.125.210 (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that I am not the only one who finds problems with this page. Marking it for neutrality check becuase it portrays East India company in a benign manner white washing all its evils. See [1] for some of the nice things that the company did. Desione (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user:Desione edits

Desione (talk · contribs), who has no history of editing this page, indeed has no history of editing any page other than talk pages, or making reverts, has now made some edits on this page that are not in keeping with the consensus of scholarly opinion on the history of colonial India. I have therefore reverted his edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fowler how long do you think you can carry on this charade of white washing the evils and atrocities of Template:British Raj and East India Company. Desione (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This page needs factual data and description first before any overall characterizations of Company rule can be added. Besides those characterizations have to reflect a consensus of scholarly opinion, or in the absence of such consensus, report on the controversy. Using words like "evil" is not a neutral approach to studying the subject. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove npov tag and please correct benign positive image of British Raj article please. Desione (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Desione, Please note that you have made four reverts in less than 24 hours: Revert1, Revert2, Revert3, Revert4. Please be advised that a 3RR violation is non-negotiable. As for the subject matter, please be advised that Company Rule, as the article says in its lead, began in 1757. This article is about that post-1757 history, not the pre-history, which is a part of British East India Company. Please also explain why you have added the section "Indo-British Social Interactions." The paragraph you have added there reads:
“ During the formative years of East India Company in India, there were few British women and it was quite common for company men to live with or marry an Indian women. Many men would adopt the attire, lifestyle, and language of the local Indians with whom they interacted with some going as far as adopting the Muslim aristocratic lifestyles complete with multiple wifes and harems. Conversions to Islam and Hinduism (to a lesser extent) also occurred. Many such relationships ended, with wifes and children saying back in India, when it came time for company men to return to UK. However, frequently, company men would move back along with their Indian wifes and mixed-race children. The children would then be given British names, get baptized into Christianity, and be raised as any other English child. The reverse situation where Indian men (usually sailors) would settle in UK with their wifes, families, and mixed-race children also took place at a much smaller scale. ”
Not only is it unsourced and contains spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors in every sentence, but it also doesn't quite fit under Company Policy. Could you please explain what you are attempting to do? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
When did I put it under company policy. Its in a seperate section titled "Indo-British social interactions" and here are the references: [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Desione (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to add the text first and then references. Like I said earlier. Any POV can be well sourced. Desione (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

have reverted Desione's changes for the foll. reasons -

  • this being a well-established topic of scholarly study with plenty of established secondary and tertiary sources available, the use of picked quotes from blogs, newspaper articles and 19th century sources to introduce a pov is not appropriate. rather than rely on such sources, pls raise particular neutrality concerns here on the talk page and they can be discussed using reliable sources.
  • the lead image of India at the time of Clive is more appropriate for this article than a map of European settlements
  • as F&f points out, the social interactions is unsourced, needs a good deal of textual improvement and, as a topic that spans Company rule and the Raj, doesn't sit well here in its current version. there's already the Anglo-Indian article and what's needed perhaps is a topic template for British India.

Doldrums (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out many time earlier the article is benign much like the British Raj article which is not in tune with the well accepted nature of East India Company rule in India or that of British Raj. Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So unless you can prove that the "east India company rule" was benign and positive (as opposed to highly negative and eventful), please stop reverting my changes. Thank you. Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please point out which "well accepted scholarship" regards east india company rule in positive and benign light. Thank you Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
characterisations of the Company's rule should be sourced to well-received scholarly texts (such as those already used in the article), reporting any controversy or consensus by faithfully following what such sources say. attempts to substantiate a pre-determined characterisation using picked quotes and stats from a diverse array of source spanning blogs to 18th century accounts is not acceptable. Doldrums (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have given my sources above for "Indo-European Social Interactions". Also, my changes to the article (besides the Indo European Social Interactions" part whose sources are listed above) is quite decently sourced. In any case the description is a chain of events rather an interpretation. I leave the interpretation to the readers. Thanks. Desione (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question as to which "well accepted scholarship" portray East India Company in a positive benign manner as in the case of current version of the article. Please let me know. Thanks. Desione (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Most scholarship doesn't necessarily make moral judgments of that nature. (At least not mainstream scholarship.) If you are stating up-front that you worry that Company rule appears 'benign' in this article, that is a problem. If you can point to specific wording that mischaracterises sources in order to give that impression, then please do so. Otherwise, please do not spuriously 'balance' that impression with quotes from non-academic sources.

A section on Company social policy is certainly encyclopaedic. A section on the social attitudes of company employees, however, would be best elsewhere. Could I suggest you start a new article? Relata refero (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points that I will be including in my version of article

  • unrequited trade
  • famine under east India company including comments from Amartya Sen regarding these famines.
  • impoverishing of Bengal.
  • trade protectionist policies and duties.
  • textile and cotton trade.
  • human rights related issues.
  • general loot of treasuries.
  • tax policies on farmers
  • ... will add more later ...

Thanks Desione (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How very NPOV.--Him and a dog 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)