Talk:British Raj

British Raj in India

Is it not straightforward that the British Raj would refer to the British rule in the Indian subcontinent? I feel @Kwamikagami: decicison to rename the article is a bit unecessary. نعم البدل (talk) نعم البدل (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Definitely not a candidate for an uncontested move.RegentsPark (comment) 00:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is it that hardly anyone editing here seems to understand the topic? The British Raj was not confined to the subcontinent - it also included much of the Arabian peninsula and Persian Gulf. I've tried adding a more representative map, but keep getting reverted; the current map is of the British Raj in India, not of the British Raj. So, we can change the topic of the article to match the map, change the map to match the article, or let them contradict each other and look like idiots. — kwami (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the British did have outposts in the Gulf or southeast Asia, but British Raj has always connoted the direct rule on the subcontinent. Aden, for example, was a part of British India during Company rule, but had become a separate crown colony at the onset of the Raj. Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) had also become a crown colony. Maldives was a protectorate, independent of the Raj.

In 2007, the Oxford English Dictionary copied their definition in great part from us, at least the small print: raj 2. 1857–spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh) (cf. partition n. 7c). Attested usage: 1857 We have just seen a translation of one of the most infamous articles against the British Raj, which we have seen published. Times 3 August 5/6

Before his death, Stanley Wolpert, the author of Britannica's Indian history section (1858-1947), added the article "British Raj" to Britannica. It begins with, "The British raj was a period of direct British rule over the Indian subcontinent following the uprising of 1857 ..."

Without much effort, I can find scholarly textbooks, published by academic publishers, and used throughout the world, which use the term "British Raj" in this manner. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Added later: See for example, Metcalf & Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2012; Fisher's Environmental History of India, Cambridge 2019, or Talbot's A History of Modern South Asia, Yale, 2016. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

PS And "much of the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf." Find me the vaunted academic sources that say so. Seriously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

An article should not be about the 'connotations' of a term, unless it's about the term itself. If it's about the topic, it should cover the topic.

If the onset of the Raj was after the 1937 independence of Aden from India, why are we illustrating it with a map from 1909, when Aden was under Indian rule, and falsely claim that it dates to 1858?

Early sources ignore or obfuscate the rule of the Indian empire in Persia and Arabia, apparently largely for political reasons, as detailed in the recent BBC coverage of just this topic. Or do you think that the news agency of the British government doesn't know what the British Raj is, even when researching this very topic? We even mention in the text that Aden was part of the Raj.

There's nothing wrong with the Britannica or OED summaries. They don't go into enough detail to make a difference - they don't mention Burma either - but we do. And are you seriously using a dictionary definition to dictate the scope of an encyclopedia article?

If we have a map from the era when Aden, Kuwait and Bahrain were part of the Raj, then they should be included in the map. Just because the common understanding or 'connotation' differs does not mean that we should present false information. — kwami (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you give details of the BBC coverage you are alluding to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

When Dubai almost became a part of India, Sam Dalrymple, BBC, 21 June 2025.

In case not everyone has access, here's the bit after the intro:

Although largely forgotten today, in the early 20th Century, nearly a third of the Arabian Peninsula was ruled as part of the British Indian Empire.

From Aden to Kuwait, a crescent of Arabian protectorates was governed from Delhi, overseen by the Indian Political Service, policed by Indian troops, and answerable to the Viceroy of India.

Under the Interpretation Act of 1889, these protectorates had all legally been considered part of India.

The standard list of India's semi-independent princely states like Jaipur opened alphabetically with Abu Dhabi, and the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, even suggested that Oman should be treated "as much a Native State of the Indian Empire as Lus Beyla or Kelat [present day Balochistan]".

Indian passports were issued as far west as Aden in modern Yemen, which functioned as India's westernmost port and was administered as part of Bombay Province. When Mahatma Gandhi visited the city in 1931, he found many young Arabs identifying as Indian nationalists.

Even at the time, however, few members of the British or Indian public were aware of this Arabian extension of the British Raj.

Maps showing the full reach of the Indian Empire were only published in top secrecy, and the Arabian territories were left off public documents to avoid provoking the Ottomans or later the Saudis.

— kwami (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• At best this deserves a footnote somewhere in the article (perhaps with better sourcing than a BBC article). If there are better sources, perhaps you should consider adding an article "British Raj in Dubai" or some such. However, the term predominantly, if not wholly, refers to the British rule over India and qualifying it is not really appropriate. RegentsPark (comment) 01:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's like saying we shouldn't show French Guiana on the map of France because in 'popular conception' French Guiana is not in France.

  I'm not saying we should move the article, only that the topic should match the title. If the title is 'British Raj', then the topic should be the British Raj -- that's elementary.

  We can certainly have a section describing how the popular conception of the Raj is not historically accurate. But us being intentionally inaccurate because we believe our readers are too ignorant to know any better is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  The bottom line for me is this: by now there are a large number of references to the British Raj, both in widely-used textbooks published by academic publishers (the titles, chapter titles, or glossaries) and in encyclopedias and dictionaries. Until my interlocutors here of this POV have reliable sources of the same quality, very likely nothing will change in this article's maps or lead sentence. My interlocutors are welcome to create as many articles as they like: British Raj in Diego Garcia, British Raj in Mauritius, British Raj in Aden, British Raj in Ceylon, British Raj in Lower Burma, British Raj in Upper Burma, British Raj in Trinidad, British Raj in Jamaica, British Raj in Surinam, British Raj in Bahrain, British Raj in Palestine, ... British Raj in the 13 American colonies, and British Raj in Great Britain, and I will not so much as take a first look at their works. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  PS From at least January 2012, the Trucial States have been mentioned in the Geographical extent section of this article, as are other protectorates or possessions that came under the control or suzerainty of the Government of the British Raj (whether in Calcutta until 1911) or thereafter in New Delhi. The map File:British Raj and surrounding countries 1909.jpg in that section shows the Trucial States in some shade of red and states at the bottom :"British protectorates, possessions, etc coloured red." It is published by: J. Bartholomew, Edinburgh Geographical Institute - Imperial Gazetteer of India, Volume XXVI, Atlas, published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1909. In other words, it is straight from the British lion's mouth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  PS2: The same goes for the map File:India-or-British-Raj-in-British-Empire-1909.jpg. Very few maps today have the comprehensiveness of the maps of the Institute. I've quickly scanned

  Sam Dalrymple's article. It is littered with errors. Says he, for example, "The standard list of India's semi-independent princely states like Jaipur opened alphabetically with Abu Dhabi, ..." But the official list (see here and in the following pages,) makes no mention of Abu Dhabi, let alone begin with it.

  In another place he says, "Maps showing the full reach of the Indian Empire were only published in top secrecy, and the Arabian territories were left off public documents to avoid provoking the Ottomans or later the Saudis." But the Imperial Gazetteer of India is available in hundreds of libraries the world over even today (see here) let alone during its heyday in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s. The set I own was discarded by a library. Its maps are littered with outposts of the Indian Empire, both in or near bodies of water or on land, in every direction.

  These are some easily identified errors. Others are more problematic, more insidious. The tenor of the article will make it popular in the current irredentist mood in Indian that hearkens or yearns for the Greater India of yesteryear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Your claims are not supported by your refs, and your straw-man comments are no more relevant that before. What do your fictitious article suggestions have to do with anything?

  If the Trucial States were part of the Raj, then a map should include them. The same with Aden.

  The 1909 map doe not color the Trucial States red, but grey, though it does list 'E. Ind Co Is'. Regardless, British territory is not synonymous with the Indian Empire.

  Possibly, just possibly, a list grouped regionally might be a different list than one arranged alphabetically. Just a thought.

  How irredentists might make claims based on an accurate account of history is not reason for us to misrepresent that history. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please post on WP:RS/N and ask them if an article on BBC web by Sam Dalrymple, aged 28, who says he received a BA from Oxford "as a scholar of Sanskrit and Persian," qualified as a source reliable enough to change the page name British Raj to British Raj in India, and please tell me immediately after you have posted. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm assuredly not an expert in this area, but it seems to me from searching around that two things are true at once: (1) indeed the Trucial States were administered as parts of British India, but (2) they were never officially stated to be parts of British India. From James Onley's book The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj: Merchants, Rulers, and the British in the Nineteenth-Century Gulf (published by OUP, so there is no question about whether this is academic enough or not), quoting from pages 20 to 25:

The powers British India exercised through its residency system varied considerably. ... In the remaining residencies in Asia and Africa—comprising Zone B—British political officers were both political representatives and imperial officials, for they had the additional duty of enforcing the terms of the treaties that the rulers of the states and chiefdoms within these residencies had signed with the East India Company or the Government of India, placing their domains under British protection and suzerainty. Although these states were still foreign territory and their rulers remained heads of state, their status vis-à-vis the British Crown placed them informally within the British Empire. Their status vis-à-vis the Governor-General of India (the Viceroy) also placed them within Britain’s Indian Empire—an empire within the British Empire, with its own military, civil service, and foreign department. The British Government of India defined the Indian Empire as ‘British India together with any territories of any Native Prince or Chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India’.⁷ While this definition does not differentiate between the formal and informal parts of the Indian Empire, the areas of British suzerainty around British India were informal empire all the same. ...

... In the same way, foreign relations between their rulers and foreign governments were conducted through and by the Indian Political Service—in effect, treating these states for international purposes as if they were provinces of British India.¹⁰

For diplomatic and pragmatic reasons, the British Government downplayed and occasionally overplayed the protected status of these states and chieftaincies. It thus referred to the Indian states sometimes as protected states and sometimes as protectorates. Although Bahrain, the Trucial States (as the United Arab Emirates were then known), and Kuwait became British-protected states in the 1880s–90s, followed by Qatar in 1916, the British Government did not publicly proclaim their status as such until 1949.¹¹ During the First World War, however, the British referred to Kuwait as a ‘protectorate’. ...

The official map of the Indian Empire enclosed in The Imperial Gazetteer of India and the annual India Office List shows British India in pink and British protectorates and protected states in yellow. For diplomatic and pragmatic reasons, this map never conformed to political reality. Ignoring its own definition of the Indian Empire, the British Government maintained the fiction that some of its protected states bordering the territories of other empires did not form part of the Indian Empire and were only loosely connected to the British Empire. Thus, British-protected states, like Afghanistan, which bordered the Russian Empire, were never coloured yellow on official maps of the Indian Empire, while Nepal and Bhutan, which bordered the Chinese dependency of Tibet, were coloured yellow for only ten years (1897–1906). Arabia, which bordered the Ottoman Empire, and British Somaliland, which bordered the Italian and French Empires, were left off the map altogether. Only the Indian stats (known collectively as Princely India) were consistently coloured yellow. This means that the Indian Empire was, in reality, much larger than is generally believed.¹⁴

With that said, however, the article is not titled the Indian Empire, but the British Raj. And also, as Onley points out (pp. 216–217), Arabia was an informal part of it only, and the British Government itself never claimed it as part of the Indian Empire (with the exception of Aden Settlement).

I am inclined to think that common usage (plus the fact that this was never actually made official despite the political reality) should win out here, but that there is a case for adding a separate map noting a point already made in the article under "Geographical extent": that speaking de facto, the Trucial States acted like princely states, even if this was never made explicit. Double sharp (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that comprehensive reply, Double sharp.

A mention of the Trucial States first appeared in this article in January 2009, though "theoretically" is probably not the best qualifier here. I vaguely do remember looking at Onley, but will read him again. I'm in agreement with your conclusions. Well, all, except moving a map from the Geographical Extent to the lead.

I had considered that a few times. One immediate problem is that the info box becomes too tall (see here) and begins to dip into Section 1, surely something people at WP:FAC will point out if the article is ever taken there, an impossible dream of mine. More importantly, with its map moved up to the info box, the Geographical Extent section will have no immediate illustration to aid the reader. (The remaining map, British Raj in relation to the British Empire, is too large-scale, and thus low-level.)

Another issue is that of the significance of a map in the lead? How significant is the second map? What does it add to the lead's textual content that the first map does not? As you will have noticed in the second map, the Trucial States are in gray, speaking to the official British Raj's incomplete recognition of them. Thus having a second map in the info box will necessitate including a mention of the Trucial States in the lead, creating issues of due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY and WP policy in this regard. Most undergraduate textbooks on modern Indian history (read around the world) make no mention of the Trucial States.)

Finally, as the secondary sources on the Raj have begun to exhaust the available primary sources both on the subcontinent and the India Office in London, academics are moving into the less dredged fields, as are their graduate students. That in turn, in my view, has given rise to popular articles such as that of Sam Dalrymple. But an encyclopedia is a very different kettle of fish (which you as a longstanding editor well know). We have to distinguish between what is established or common and what is infrequent. Trucial States are not frequently mentioned in most summaries of the Raj.

In light of all this, I feel it is best not to change anything, but to improve the Geographical Extent section, remove the tag, and revisit the issue in a six months time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Well, as I said, I thought there was a case. It's just that thanks to your explanation, I am convinced that the case is not strong enough. :)

(I would, on the other hand, heartily agree with the idea to improve the "Geographical extent" section.) Double sharp (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between the British Raj and the Indian Empire?

Several statements above concern the Empire not having the same extent as the Raj, but we appear to define them as synonyms. I understand that 'Indian Empire' is an informal term, but can we meaningfully contrast them? — kwami (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: As I said, I am not an expert in this; but since the lede says "Indian Empire" was not really an official term, and that is the term Onley is using for parts that were de facto administered through the Governor-General of India but never acknowledged officially as being in that situation, I wonder if one could reasonably draw a distinction between keeping "British Raj" as a common-use term for the official bits, and using "Indian Empire" when one wants to consider cases like the Trucial States. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Flag and Emblem

The flag nor the emblem are represented in the info box. I believe it'd be helpful and informative if they're added. Lucky1201 (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)