Talk:Anglo-Indian people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

1. AIs (yes, they refer to themselves as AIs, not "Anglos") have reserved seats not just for MPs but MLAs as well (State Legislative Assemblies). I was a member of the AIAIA (All India Anglo Indian Association) that made the recommendations for MLAs appointments and I'm fairly sure we did one for AP (Hyderbad).

2. The AI community has made contributions to India that far surpass their numbers. How come none of this is covered? Any takers? They comprised most of the staff in missionary schools (probably 99.99% of people who had an English education in India were taught by an AI at some point). But that pales into insignificance when you look at the contributions they made to the railways, the Navy (particularly during the 1965 and 1971 conflicts), ports, customs, and sport. At one point in time, I understand, 7 of the Indian Hockey team members were AIs.

3. We don't seem to have any mention of their unique foods (ball curry and coconut rice with devil chutney, anyone?), the words and expressions unique to the community, the annual Christmas dances, other socio-cultural matters worthy of comment.

Any takers? Poweroid 20:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

Please cite your sources to any claims of Anglo-Indian origins from a credible source. I'll be removing dubious links for now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Indiachild isn't a credible reference source

212.219.145.102 has made some very good points in his/her edit but I have a problem with the Indiachild.com as a reference source. Their entire content on AIs is about half a dozen paragraphs long (i.e. they aren't really any authority on the subject). But the real issue is that their content isn't even accurate. From their site: "Unlike the Parsis, relatively few have attained high levels of education, amassed great wealth, or achieved more than subordinate government positions". This is patently untrue and the Indian armed forces alone provides ample evidence in the form of the numerous Anglo-Indians who've been awarded military honours, titles and very senior positions. Bear in mind that the community was only about 200,000 strong at Independence and has been getting smaller since. While AIs accounted for less than 0.02% of the Indian population it's a fact that they accounted for over 5% of senior position in the Indian Navy alone... and 10% of Admirals in the Navy were Anglo-Indians. Their contributions in other areas is also quite marked.

The new edit also has: "The origins of the community can be traced to the the East India Company's policy to establish a mixed race population in 17th century India that would be Protestant and loyal to the the King and to the Company and perhaps also their long term employees natural wish to put down roots and start legitamate families."

So why are most Anglo-Indians Roman Catholic? There is no evidence that the AI community came about through a strategic plan. The way I see it is that there were three aspects to the formation of the community: 1) Intermarriages between royals and senior staff in the East India Company/British Government which were strategic military/territorial alliances (If my borther marries your sister it's unlikely you'll invade our princely state as we are now family) 2) Indian women getting pregnant by Europeans as a result of rape or consensual sexual encounters and 3) Natural marriages between western men settled in India who wanted to create roots there ...and agreeable Indian women.

I'll invite 212.219.145.102 to contribute to the discussion here as I intend reverting his/her edits to an earlier version of the article. Poweroid 15:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Useless link - remove?

Why is there a link to the article titled 'Superior Race' on this page? And thank goodness, the article has not yet been started! Gajamukhu 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Go ahead and remove it :) Poweroid 16:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

About 212.219.145.125's substantial edits

1. If you disagree with the Indian Constitution's definition of Anglo-Indian feel free to tell us what definition you would like to use instead. But to ignore the "Anglo" part of Anglo-Indian and attempt to bunch a whole range of other minorities under the A.I. label neither makes sense nor is semantically / logically correct.

2. The deletion of large parts of material here and instructing readers to visit your site for that information could be construed as spam / vandalism.

I've reverted the article to an older version. Poweroid 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

David McMahon

Somebody keeps adding his name to the list of famous Anglo-Indians together with a link to his site. I don't think he's famous. Anyone has any info to suggest that he is? Poweroid 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody do something about him! He's reverted at least 4-5 times. Poweroid 19:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrea Jane Williams

Andrea Jane Williams - Miss Pakistan 1987 Miss Asia Beauty Pageant; Miss Pakistan in 1988 Miss Carribean and Commonwealth Pageant. Being the First Miss Pakistan before Pakistan objected to Beauty Pageant representation. Andrea Jane Williams is now an Indie singer songwriter.[1].[2]

Andrea Jane Williams is featured as a late entry page 197 in Asians in the Millenium first Edition. Publishers Ethnic Media Group of which other publications include Eastern Eye and Asian Times Newspapers in which she has also featured

I agree Poweroid 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

She may not be A list but she is a celebrity of sorts having made several guest appearances on tv in the early and late nineties. one of her pageant videos and her stage name Andicat appear at www.myspace.com/andicat1 and www.myspace.com/aphroditeskiss. I have followed her music career for a while. I was particularly interested in knowing she was anglo indian as i myself have some indian blood in me. Her great grandfather was Captain George Henry Garstin in the British navy and her gt grandmother Indian. Therefore she is an anglo indian as her family tree to date have been anglo indians marrying anglos.

Max Anglo Andicat Fan.

Reverting the Jagged85 edit

I am reverting the series of changes made by Jagged85. Many are cosmetic, one is made to create a reference link to an external site where no reference is needed, and others are factually incorrect. Also, the community can't have a British father; individuals in the community, however, can. Poweroid 13:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The only reference I cited was Dictionary.com, which gives dictionary definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Webster's Dictionary. In what way do you feel that these English dictionaries could possibly be incorrect? Although the Western definitions of the term are a bit different to the Indian definition, both definitions should be mentioned. If you remove relevant information given from English dictionaries because you feel it is factually incorrect, then that would be original research, which should always be avoided on Wikipedia. However, this article in general lacks sources. This article would be more reliable if more references were added. Jagged 85 05:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indiachild

ANGLO INDIANS AND THEIR INDIAN ANCESTORY and IDENTITY: Can anyone explain why Engelbert Humperdinck (the singer) seems to be in denial of the Indian side of his ancestory (an accusation that can be leveled at many other Anglo Indians)? I went to school in Mumbai (St.Mary's High School, Mazagoan)with a Patrick Dorsey who said he was a first cousin of Englebert's. To us he was as Indian as the rest of us. We were all dead proud of Englebert's achievments, thou' we may not necessarily have liked his music (it was music for our Mums and Dads, in an era of the Stones and the Beatles!). However, over the past 30yrs in England I've seen various interviews on telly with Englebert and in all of them he never refers to his Indian past (except in the interview with Mark Lawson) and constantly refers to himself as the Leicester Lad. The reality was that his 'lad' days were spent in the lap of luxury (the horrors of partition apart) in India. He also always talks about coming 'home'. England was his father's home, sure; but India was his mother's and it was the land of his birth. I would therefore argue that that aught to have been his home really.

Many Anglo Indians (a classification unknown to the English back home, incidentally) spoke of coming 'home' but when they got to England were considered 'Pakis' like the rest of us. I know of a fully paid up Anglo Indian, formerly from Cochin, a builder by trade who recently had to flee the Eltham area in S.E. London, known to be a rabid National Front (the right wing fascist party) stronghold, when he responded to call to his ad in the name of C.Dunn. I know he didn't feel at 'home' then!

I'll end by urging all Anglo Indians in doubt of their ancestory to also embrace their 'Indian-ness'. You may have been collaborators in the colonial project but India bears no grudge. All is forgiven!! India is on the ascendant again and if one needs to know some of your Indian ancestors' achievements, apart from giving the world it's numerals and zero here's something you ought to take note and be proud of: Q. We Indians are the wealthiest among all ethnic groups in America, and growing in the rest of the world… even faring better than those of European descent, the Jews, Latin Americans and the natives. There are only 2.22 million Indians in the USA (1.5% of population).

YET, 38% of doctors in the USA are Indians. 20% scientists in the USA are Indians. 36% of NASA scientists are Indians. 34% of Microsoft employees are Indians. 28% of IBM employees are Indians. 17% of INTEL scientists are Indians. 13% of XEROX employees are Indians.

Contributor's note: These statistics are unfounded. In order to get these kinds of statistics, all these comanpies such as NASA or INTEL and XEROX would have to ask their employees what their ethnic backgrounds are, tally them up and report them somewhere. I have worked for one of these companies and can assure you they are not. Also the statistic about US doctors must be fabricated, because it means every state would have to ask what ethnicity their doctors are and then reporting it to a national database - why would a medical association care and spend the money to do that? These statistics simply are not being collected by any of these organizations. Even if they were collected by one organization, they would need to be verified and would also need to be updated every year for changing employee populations. These statistics are false with no basis in fact and no one has any basis to prove where these came from or their accuracy. http://www.boydom.com/2012/12/03/top-10-internet-hoaxes/

The fact of the matter is that you are both Indian and English/British. That is a reality you can be proud of.

Engelbert Humperdinck and Anglo Indians remember to embrace your Indian side too. Acknowledge your mother!

http://www.indianchild.com/anglo_indians.htm has been kind enough to supply us with information provided they are credited. Email proof available with me. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Nicholas,      
Thanks for writing to us.  
Yes, you may use some paragraphs or articles from Indianchild.com with a courtesy link.

Sincerely,
M.Hemdev
CEO Indianchild.com

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Indiachild isn't a credible reference source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglo-Indian#Indiachild_isn.27t_a_credible_reference_source Poweroid 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

John Masters's "Bhowani Junction" is an interesting book in this context. The heroine, Victoria Jones, decides to identify with her Indian as opposed to her English forebears. Incidentally, I worked in London for a time in the seventies, and Anglo-Indians were quite a prominent group then. I don't think they considered themselves a distinct community as such, but they had their own accent and heritage. Perhaps that's all gone now? Millbanks 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixed British-Indian ethnicity

Why is this section even here? Anglo-Indian is specifically about a community. Other than a brief clarification in the lead that "British-Indian ethnicity" (BIE), is not the same as Anglo-Indian, nothing further need be said about BIE. If you want to start a page about BIE and see if it will fly, be my guest, but I see little connection between BIE and Anglo-Indian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed that section. The more I thought about it the more ridiculous it seemed. Mainly, "British-Indian ethnicity" is not an ethnicity (ie. there are no cultural or linguistic markers that set them apart). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian emmigration to the UK and Canada

Discussion of why I am reverting the current text regarding the influx of Indians into the UK and Canada: While it's a perfectly valid claim that there have been several waves of immigration into the UK and that those immigrants have married locals and had children with them it is clear that these children do not form part of the Anglo-Indian community. You are free to make the assertions elsewhere in the article that there have been inter-marriages in the last 50 years. That fact is not disputed. Poweroid 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can, unless you can show sources discrediting my info, there is no reason for an objection. You’re presenting a one-sided view from Indian Laws, which was influenced historically influenced by the British to protect their Extremely Small Anglo-Indian Minority (0.00028 % / 100.00000 %). This does not represent the Past or Present actuality of the situation. Your trying to present a false illusion that ONLY Male British and Female Indians had kids, and that’s how it is. I’m not going to create a new section; the info is balanced and speaks for itself. Cosmos416 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cosmos 416 but your completely wrong. That's not what Poweroid is saying. The point is, that this article is about the specific mixed race cuultural community that existed in British India, and which had its own set of customs, practices and institutions. It is NOT about people in general who are of mixed british and Indian descent. The community in question defined itself (and was defined by others) patrilineally. Poweroid doesn't need to discredit your info; it may be completely accurate (in fact it probably is). The point is that it is irrelevant to the current discussion. If you want to discuss people of mixed british and indian descent in general, then set up a separate page, and create a disambiguation. This page is about the particular community in India. For the same reason i have made a number of changes to the opening paragraphs, removing the references to inter marriage in the UK and US, which are irrelevant to this article for the same reasons. Mattlav 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Poweroid and Mattlav. You can't simply change the definition of "Anglo-Indian" to your purposes and give it a broader meaning. "Anglo-Indian" does not (I repeat, does not) have anything to do with latter-day offspring of couples with British and Indian backgrounds. It applies specifically to the historically defined community.

Also, user:Cosmos416, please don't flatter yourself as you did in your edit summary that I am trolling your edits. I began to edit this page after I became aware that the subject of one of the pages I had created, Stanley Henry Prater, had been wrongly listed as an Anglo-Indian, when he was in fact British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cosmos416, where does your reference use the word "Anglo-Indian" for the offspring of multiracial marriages in Canada? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the right paper. Please see:

• Cottress, Ann Baker. 1979. "Today's Asian-Western Couples Are Not Anglo-Indians", Phylon, Vol. 40, No. 4. (4th Qtr., 1979), pp. 351-361. From the introduction:

“ For ten years I have been engaged in the study of contemporary cross-national families. Specifically, I have been interviewing South-Asians married to westerners and living in India, the United States and Great Britain. During this period I have been constantly surprised by the confusion about contemporary and historical Asian-Western marriages. The purpose of this paper is to emphasize the great differences between Anglo-Indians, the community of descendants of early Indian-Western marriages, and contemporary Asian-Western couples. This paper argues that contemporary Asian-Western couples represent quite a different phenomenon from the early couples because of differences in the nature of social relations during the colonial and contemporary periods and differences in the socioeconomic position of the people intermarrying. They have not experienced the same degree of social marginality as the Anglo-Indians have; thus they are not becoming a community with a sense of identity and shared culture as the Anglo-Indians have done. ”

So, User:Cosmos416, unless you have a reliable academic reference that rebuts this, please don't keep introducing extraneous material. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I have just dropped in to view the site as its been a long time since I last visited (but its a short visit)

I write and lecture on the subject of Anglo-Indians and Anglo-Indian Family History. I have some definitions of "Anglo-Indian" which pre date the Constitution definition and which appear in articles I have written 2005/06. I wondered if you would like me to insert them in an appropriate part of the page. Its interesting that all the "official" definitions are Patrilineal/European yet one would think a key factor to be a real Anglo Indian is that somewhere in your back ground , probably on a female (distaff)pre 1833 line is an Indian woman! Something I will be mentioning in my talk in December 2007 at the Anglo-Indian Conference.

There is a new book just come out August 2007 called "Scattered Seeds - the diaspora of the Anglo-Indians" the book was compiled by the Anglo-Indian photographer Dorothy Dady . It comprises full page photos of Anglo-Indians from different parts of the world and next to each photo a few autobiographical comments by the person on what it means, to them, to be an Anglo-Indian. What I find interesting is that there are 2nd generation people whose Anglo-Indian Ancestry is either through their mother or grandmother (which of course does not conform with the patrilineal defintions) and they feel proud of their heritage.

I am Anglo-Indian by the way and also have contributed to the CTR publications and to "Scaterred Seeds".

Sorry for any spelling mistakes and I can't get rid of the other version(s) I did either! Delphus 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anthony de Melo

I don't think Anthony de Melo was Anglo-Indian. He was probably Goan. --fredericknoronha (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Migration patterns

There is no information on migration patterns of Anglo Indians esp. post 1947 Kahasabha (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Style

I placed a style/tone-tag on the history section, specifically, the third paragraph. The style is utterly unencyclopedic ("the first noble pioneer", "quite an ovation", or the pejorative "Mohammedan law", which is to be called "Islamic law" to name a few) and needs correction. I'd do it myself if I had the time, but in the meantime request anyone able and willing to help to do so (perhaps I'll get around to that in a few weeks, but not yet). Vargher (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kipling

I do not see any evidence from the article Rudyard Kipling indicating his Indian ancestry. He was born in Bombay, but weren't both his father and mother British? At least they met in England and moved together to India. --132.230.151.57 10:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

As stated in the article, the term AI refers not only to mixed race individuals but also to "persons not temporarily domiciled in India" of purely European descent; and to that extent, Anglo-Indians are self selected. Take for example Jim Corbett, who strongly identified himself as an Indian and has been honored as such by the Indian Government and people. An interesting parallel to Corbett is Louis Leakey, who clearly implies in his autobiography that he considered himself a Kikuyu and not an Englishman, as a result of growing up speaking the Kikuyu tongue to everyone but his parents, and thinking in Kikuyu at least into his twenties. Are there such things as Anglo-Africans ?

Yes although the Apartheid rules of South Africa put Anglo-Africans in the official category Coloured. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

However it doesn't make sense to apply the term 'Anglo-Indian' to a person of European descent who happened to be born in India but moved away at an early age, and has no self identification as an AI; for example, Vivien Leigh, cited under 'Notable Persons' in the article.

Regarding Kipling, it is problematic to what extent he considered himself AI. It is significant that in the Jungle Book, the animals - Mowgli's best and only friends - reason and speak in much the same way as Kipling represents native Indians as doing, for example in Kim. Mowgli is a human adopted by animals, who prove to be better and wiser than humans. Ultimately Mowgli must return to his own heritage, but he preserves the lessons he has learned from that other 'culture', which have made him what he is. This perhaps speaks to the question as to what extent Kipling considered himself an Indian. Cspalletta 11:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)-

There does not seem to be a community of people called Anglo-Africans. A major distinguishing feature of the Anglo-Indian community is just that - they are a community. They've evolved their own expressions, foods, culture, and traditions. A person who happens to be born today of a British father and an Indian mother does not become an "Anglo-Indian" as the term is currently used. The "persons not temporarily domiciled in India" was part of a definition created a long time ago and is ripe for revision. Personally, I think it's time to coin a new definition to replace the AIAIA one. The new one should be built around what is the Anglo-Indian community today. Perhaps a second definition can be offered for those who may consider themselves to be of both British and Indian descent but who aren't from the Anglo-Indian community. Poweroid 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Apologies about Rudyard Kipling, you are correct. After some research into his bio I've removed him from the list. Poweroid

Notable persons of Anglo-Indian descent

This needs to be seriously trimmed. "Anglo-Indian" is used throughout the article to mean "person of mixed English and Indian descent", but many people on the list do not qualify. George Orwell was born in India, yes, but both his parents were strictly European. --Saforrest (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Anglo-Indian descent & one more person for the list

I have to agree with the person above. There has to be a "limit" because really, if we go back far enough, we'll find that everyone on earth could be related to one another there could every have a bit of indian in them. In Canada the "limit" to being called native is 1/8th. I have 2 grand parents who are indian but I'm not "anglo" at all. so what does that make me? Caucasian Indian? Seems kinda generic.

That being said, a person not on the list that could truly be defined as such is Norah Jones. Her father is Ravi Shankar and her mother an American musician. They had a brief relationship from what I read.

But I do like this listing and the links it states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.253.63 (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Norah Jones is not an "Anglo Indian." That term only refers to people of mixed British-Indian ethnicity from colonial times, like Nicolette Sheridan or Diana Hayden.

In fact, a few of those people on the list don't fit in. Tara Sharma? Is she really an Anglo-Indian or just a recent mix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Table

I have added a Table as I believe it is necessary to do so and due to the fact this article is becoming somewhat untidy. Please feel free to comment. --Billsta1 (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

A.I.s are established as a community and a person born today of mixed Anglo and Indian parentage does not share any of the cultural traits of that community. Yet, there is no other word to define them. If we are calling them Anglo-Indians we do need to distinguish from the established community of that name. Poweroid 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the term Anglo-Indian limited to people for whom their or their ancestors mixture began in India? If so, what is the term for other part-British, part-Indian people, for example a person born in the UK of one British parent, one Indian parent? How about for a person born in Australia of one British parent, one Indian parent? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No disambiguation on similar articles

It is not stated but understood, that when used as an adjective, Anglo-Indian refers to anything relating to Britain and India (or possibly to England and British India). Eh^? //Big Adamsky 10:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calcutta

"What's with all the focus on Calcutta, Bandel, Hooghly?" Poweroid - Gosh, I don't think any serious student of British India would ask such a question. Calcutta was the capital of British India in the late 18th century, throughout the 19th century and right up until 1912. Founded in the 17th century, it was the capital of the first major province of the British empire in India. Bandel & Hooghly are now more or less part of greater Calcutta.Your critique that if we were to include Calcutta we would have to start including places like Trichy has no logic. As the political and economic centre of the British Raj, to discuss how events unfolded in Calcutta (which always had a knock on effect for the rest of British India) is quite logical and fair.

That should answer your question.

"There is no evidence that the Anglo-Indian community came about from anything other than simple inter-marriages/unions of British and Indians." Correct! Very very correct! I was not trying to say that the British did it on purpose, nevertheless the British were in fact fearful of this fanciful outcome. I have included proof of this from the highest possible source.

"I'm reverting to an older copy of the article." That was a bit heavy handed my friend. The "History" section was pretty pathetic and empty, it only really had a little to say about 1947. At least now it carries (for a second time) information about what was going on in the 19th century, or do you think that nothing is better than something? Even information re AI's in India's former British capital is better than nothing. You're free to rub out whatever you like, but the question is, can you replace my information with something better? If so - I would love to read it!

Anyway, I hope I've made it all clearer this time.

TB

TB, you've made some significant edits. They come from different IPs (as you haven't registered on wikipedia); maybe we could keep track of each other's edits if you do register.

I'm an AI from Ripon Lane (Off Elliot Road). I agree about the importance of Calcutta to the Raj. However, the focus of this article isn't the Raj, it's AIs, and they occur in considerable concentrations outside of Cal ... most of which cities don't even get a mention. If you wish to argue the history angle there is sizeable amount of history relating to AIs from outside Calcutta, their contributions to the world and to the AI condition. Without any of that the article is still very Calcutta focused. I don't have the heart to revert your current edit as you have obviously expended a large amount of time and effort. And I don't have the time to match your input with history of AIs from Hyderabad, Vizag, Khurda Rd, various TN raliway colonies, Agra, Delhi, Ranchi, the mining areas (how did so many get into mining anyway?) or cities now in Pakistan. Maybe I'll attempt a major revision to the article at another time.

^ You can't deny that the greatest concentration of Anglo-Indians at one time was in Calcutta, especially in places like Ripon Street , Elliot Road , Beniapukur , Park Circus , Mullickbazar, Joragirja, Taltala, Park Street. These neighbourhoods were historically Christian and Muslim neighbourhoods; as opposed to north Calcutta which were the Hindu areas. The Whites (Brits) lived in "posh" places like Theatre Road(Shakespeare Sarani), Lindsay Street , Camac Street , Free School Street , and of course all around the "Maidan". What I mean to say is that there are multiple neighbourhoods in Calcutta which still have a very distinctive Anglo-Indian touch to it , despite the fact that these are now mostly inhabited by the Muslims. Just look at the huge number of Protestant Churches and graveyards in these areas (though most of them have now been abandoned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.209.131 (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

>> or do you think that nothing is better than something

BTW, nothing can sometimes be better than too much :)

If you do register drop me a message in my talk area and we can maybe exchange emails. Poweroid 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Irish

Many Anglos in India have Irish rather than British ancestry, especially among the Catholics. Derek O'Brien is an obvious example. Those with Irish surnames like O'Brien, O'Connor etc are descendants of Anglo-Irish settlers who arrived in Britain during the Irish famine of the 1800s. I think there should be a mention of it. -- Timofeyevich (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.118.70 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is part of Britain. Britain =/= English.

^ Actually , the poorer Anglo-Indians in Calcutta had converted to Catholicism in the 1940s and 50s , both as a protest against what they perceived to be British apathy towards their condition as well as a perceived lack of charitable love on the part of Protestant churches. However , they did not adopt Irish surnames , they continued with the English ones. the only change was sending their excess children to Irish-run orphanages. Surnames such as "O'Brien" , "O'Neill" , "O'Connor" , "Kelly" have been common among AIs since the 1850s and thats because they're father was probably an Irishman. These familes remained Catholic and they were not poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.209.131 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I was reading a number of English books from the colonial and post-colonial period and they use the term "Anglo-Indian" to refer to British people settled in India, particularly Kipling. Shouldnt this definition be included as well?

• Exactly my point. Anything non-community should be separated to avoid confusion. Poweroid 13:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a diffiult and confused subject. Some of the people cited, eg George Orwell, were surely not of mixed race. If being born in India makes someone Anglo-Indian, why not add Rudyard Kipling and John Masters for example? Then there are people of mixed Indian and British ancestry who would not consider themselves Anglo-Indian, such as the Newcastle born Michael Chopra or the former Conservative MP, Jonathan Sayeed. And how about Nasser Hussain?

In the light of this, I'm not going to add to or subtract from either list, but you could add Kevin Keelan, the former Norwich City goalkeeper, or another footballer, Ricky Hippolyte, who played for Crystal Palace in the seventies.

There's a sad racist tinge. Lots of people are queueing up wanting to say, "I'm Irish". Far fewer want to claim Indian blood. Bill Tegner 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment on this in the "Plastic Paddy" discussion was removed! Some things are just TOO sensitive. Bill Tegner 09:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition as it stands is wrong. For many people now, when they refer to Anglo-Indian they think of persons of mixed parentage. But there is no legal definition that says that this is the case, and historically the term meant only Britishers who were living in India. It actually excluded those of mixed parentage! The definition must be changed to reflect the changing meanings it implies.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo /White Obsession

As a person with of Indian background 5th gen from the Caribbean I find that that some Indian people are so into being thought of as being white, fitting in and being thought of as Anglo, or white. But it seems some people in India, and people from India are obsessed with it.

It guessing it probably has to do with the whole class and caste thing, ....and caste is totally unknown to me and not something we had to deal with.

So when does one stop being "Anglo Indian"?? When does the line end. So someone with a great grandfather that was supposedly white is "Anglo Indian"

Going back to American history Sort of reminds me of the idea of black who so badly wanted to mix/ be a part of white society.

If there were supposedly so many "Anglo" Indians in England walking about freely as this article seem to claim going way to the 19th century century. Why was there suck a back lash, and prejudice in the 70's in England relating to Indians. The English supposedly was used to them...

"In contrast to Anglo-Indians (then known as 'Eurasians') born in British India who usually acquired their British ancestry paternally and Indian ancestry maternally, Anglo-Indians born in Britain usually acquired their Indian ancestry paternally and British ancestry maternally. Interracial marriage was fairly common in Britain since the 17th century, when the British East India Company began bringing over thousands of Indian scholars, lascars and workers (mostly Bengali and/or Muslim) to Britain, most of whom married and cohabited with local white British women and girls, due to the lack of Indian women in Britain at the time. This later became an issue, as a magistrate of the London Tower Hamlets area in 1817 expressed disgust at how the local English women and girls in the area were marrying and cohabiting almost exclusively with foreign Indian lascar seamen. Nevertheless, there were no legal restrictions against 'mixed' marriages in Britain, unlike the restrictions in India.[29][30][31] Families with South Asian lascar fathers and white mothers established interracial communities in Britain's dock areas.[32] This led to a growing number of "mixed race" children being born in the country, which challenged the British elite efforts to "define them using simple dichotomies of British versus Indian, ruler versus ruled."[18] The number of women of colour in Britain were often outnumbered by "half-caste Indian" daughters born from white mothers and Indian fathers.[33]"""

I think is/ was probably an opportunist title people gave to themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.167.113 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Some changes I'm going to make

1. Removed etymology of AI. The definitions in the opening para are sufficient summaries.

2. "It may also assist you henceforth in penning your lucubrations:....Well, Sir, I think I have submitted sufficient, and really, even upon a third and fourth perusal, I am at a loss to fix upon one...". I'm removing all of this. Please read the POV guidelines.

3. "An infusion of ‘superior’ British blood would, it was thought, create a caste of Super-Natives..." There is no evidence that the Anglo-Indian community came about from anything other than simple inter-marriages/unions of British and Indians. To suggest the British consciously worked towards creating a community of mixed blood requires some evidence. Are we suggesting that British all over India worked at inter-racial unions with the sole intention of creating Anglo-Indians? I'm removing this.

Regarding the above, Richard Francis Burton wrote that he had never witnessed or heard of a case of an Indian kept woman falling in love with her white protector. He also mentions that these women scornfully compared their English lovers to village roosters for the paucity and brevity of their sexual performances. As for marrying an Indian woman, that would have been considered 'going Native'. Taken altogether, not the soundest foundation for the creation of a 'super' race. Cspalletta 11:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

: Perhaps the sentiment was put rather too strongly, but there might be something in it. I am sure that I have read of financial incentive in the early days for Brits to take Indian wives. Why do this? Perhaps there were other reasons, but it seems that the British did create a worker force of British-Indians who adopted the fashions, language and religion of their officer fathers. Certainly, it seems that the Anglo-Indians have been a reliable and well-educated community, very handy for the British who it is assumed wished to control their prize (India). (CLF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.57.57 (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

4. " 1901 census of Calcutta....Anglo Indians have always been an integral part of Calcutta's society... first European settlement in Bengal at Hooghly, and set up a famous church at Bandel to bear witness to their Catholic piety...Hooghly waned, the Kintals journeyed to the new city of Calcutta..." What's with all the focus on Calcutta, Bandel, Hooghly? Sure, Cal has it's fair share of AIs - and AI history - but if we included a similar quantity of AI history from other provinces, from the Bombays to the Trichys the article would far exceed Wikipedia max sizes.

I'm reverting to an older copy of the article. That seems easier than making all the modifications above... and others. I've also left previous editor a message on his own talk page. Please have a look. Poweroid 20:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

.

>> Often Anglo-Indian can trace their origins to mean serving with serving in the East India Company and their policy to create a mixed race protestant community.

Two issues with that

1. I don't know any A.I. who can actually trace his origins that far with any degree of certainty. What's your source?

2. What's your source also for the claim that the EIC had a "policy" to "create a mixed race protestant community"?

>> However many Anglo-Indian also have Dutch, French, Danish or Portuguese bloodlines

No, they don't. Someone of mixed Dutch and Indian blood would be Dutch-Indian, not Anglo-Indian. There are various definitions of Anglo-Indian - from that of the All India Anglo Indian Association to that of the Indian Constitution - and none of them include decendants of assorted other European nationalities/cultures. I appreciate that these Eurasians who are not Anglo-Indians are even smaller in number than the A.I.s themselves and that aligning themselves with the A.I.s gives them numerous benefits - including access to preferentials seats in the Indian Legislative Assemblies and Parliament - but that does not co-opt them into a community and culture that is very distinct from their own.

Sure, you can take "Anglo" in the wider sense to mean Anglo-Saxon ethnicity but you may want to create a new term to encompass ALL Eurasians including the Anglo-Indian. The term, Anglo-Indian, however, is already taken and has a meaning and culture that goes back to before you were born :) Poweroid 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe a law was passed in India by the British that was to include Portuguese-Indians, British-Indians and Dutch-Indians and Anglo-Indian (having some kind of special status??) and the term Anglo-Indian used to encompass all of these. I am 'Anglo-Indian' of Portuguese and Indian decent. (CLF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.57.57 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong list

One in the top list should be in the other. Mary Archer, also known as Mary Weeden, seems to be an Anglo-Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC) "Weeden" and "Weedon" are both used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Globalize}}

May I ask, which part of the world has been under-represented? Deryck C. 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

None that I can see. I have removed it. Romper (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This page does not fit in with a proper definition and varies by country, therefore, tag is appropriate. I might remind other users that 3 people do not form a consensus and edits are allowed to happen as we improve the article. HonestopL 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

'History of the Anglo-Indian Community - Britain'

Further to the discussions above [3] [4]; again the article is being amended to include information not related to the subject, namely about the supposed history of the Anglo-Indians in Britain. This information of course has nothing to do with the Anglo-Indian community. It is also out of kilter with the rest of the article, e.g. the population figures given in the table relate only to the Anglo-Indian community proper.

Incidentally, not only does the mixed race population of Britain have it's own article but the wider article on Eurasians has entire section pertaining to British/Indian crosses in the United Kingdom (from where much of the offending dubious information appears to have been lifted wholesale).

Thus I have removed this section. Romper (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you need to knock it off or you will both be blocked for edit-warring. I suggest you seek some mediation at WP:DR, for instance. Honestop, stop making those ridiculous claims about "4 recent editors"--you've been saying that for months. If you all don't work this out I will block you both and protect the article. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies.

You are right that this should have been handled differently.

In fairness I believed that a consensus had already been reached regarding this and that the recent contributions were in direct contravention of this consensus without any explaination being given on the talk page.

I see now that, rather than assuming this to be obvious, it might have been better if I had explained my reasoning on the talk page.

To explain to others I do so here:

Please see these recent news items:123456789. Please also see these websites:12345678

Clearly there is a distinct community/ethnic group known as the Anglo-Indians with a rich history, culture and indeed cuisine. There can be no doubt that this community should have it's own article on Wikipedia. Indeed when anyone, worldwide, refers to Anglo-Indians, they are in all likelihood refering to this community.

The existant of this community and its parameters are recognised in the Indian constitution.

Furthermore this is of great relevance and should be noted: Today's Asian-Western Couples are not Anglo-Indians

Evidently information about persons not from this community should not be included in a page about it.

Given this edit-warring how then to progess?

I had considered that perhaps 'Anglo-Indian' could be a disambiguation page with links to a page on the community as refered to above and to a separate page related to mixed-race individuals in Britain of Indian and British heritage. Yet mixed-race individuals in Britain of Indian and British heritage do not usually refer to themselves as 'Anglo-Indians' and are refered to officially as 'Mixed:White-Asian'. Also the mixed race population of Britain already has an article about it as well as the wider article on Eurasians having a section pertaining to British-South Asian mixed race persons in the United Kingdom.

My conclusion is that the section related to Britain should be removed in it's entirety.

I am open to hearing a different perspective.

Hopefully this dispute can be resolved here, on the talk pages; otherwise I shall seek Dispute Resolution as you suggest.

Romper (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I hope so too. I am surprised that your counterpart hasn't been here yet. Give it a day before you seek redress elsewhere? Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Romper, you and I are debating the Definition of what an "Anglo-Indian" is. You have a singular idea, you have provided a few news articles and, mainly personal BLOG's and Random Websites, that won't support any of what you're saying, we need academic credentials, and clarity. And Romper your idea of consesnus is from 5 years ago? At least Users: MFIreland, Charlesdrakew, Goethean, and HonestopL (Me) and possible more were in consensus by reverting your edits for inclusion the over past year and a bit. Alot has changed since 2007, from a proper academic definition now being the basis of this article, to the expansion and upgrading the quality and integrity of it.

Unless you have academic sources saying the definition "Anglo-Indian" is ONLY between Indians and British together in India (from established Academic Sources like the Oxford Dictionary). We need some credible sources with quotations explaining exactly what the definition of an Anglo-Indian from your view. I've presented you a clear cut definition from the the most prestige Dictionary in the World (Used Everywhere) contradicting your own personal views of what you define "Anglo-Indian".

The "Anglo-Indian" definition from Oxford Dictionary and other academic institutions consider under the umbrella term (It means a "Wider Definition) that the definition of "Anglo-Indian" is:

1)"Of mixed British and Indian parentage" - Fits the inclusion of India with Britain sections

2)"Of Indian descent but born or living in Britain" - Fits the inclusion of India with Britain sections

3) "Or (chiefly historical) of British descent or birth but living or having lived long in India"

The sections of Indians in Britain is part of Definition 2 (and 1). Clear cut, very well stated I might add.

Now because people in parts of India, or few other countries might refer to it one way, but the academic sources say that "Anglo Indian" has a Broader Definition (which you disagree with), and with you using flimsy BLOG articles and Random Websites, and a few news sources, only shows/ discusses one-side of "Anglo-Indians" (with no Quotations of any kind, or any academic definitions saying otherwise).

The Oxford Dictionary source says it includes various types of "Anglo-Indians". So I need you show me some credible sources where it specifically states that Anglo-Indians do not include ones in Britain. That the Term "Anglo Indian" is only exclusively for India and not Britain. Because, I have provided the Oxford Dictionary's definition as: 1)"Of mixed British and Indian parentage", 2)"Of Indian descent but born or living in Britain", which is directly saying your position is incorrect.

Last time I checked Oxford Dictionary is very established, prestigious, and accurate. They're saying my views on "Anglo-Indians" in Indian and Britain are validated, and that this does not warrant exclusion. HonestopL 12:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Honestop, no need for sarcasm. No one denies the validity of the Oxford, though one may well point out that there is a difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. I note also that Romper has presented a slew of academic and other references, as well as an other argument pertaining to coverage elsewhere on-wiki; you have not addressed those issues. Finally, why don't you invite those others to the discussion? (You'll find that one is indefinitely unavailable.) Extra-finally, it would be helpful if both of you indent according to conventional formatting so it's clear who's saying what to who. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no Sarcasm, and was clear on the nature of the debate. I will not debate with you since you're an admin who is suppose to be impartial, and have been showing your true colors (really wondering why you keep on attacking me everywhere). it's seriously starting to scare me.

And if you think blogs and random websites called "indiachild" are academic? Then maybe we have a bigger problem. And you're defending him saying he has shown proof? I'm asking him to CITE it some we can study it's merits. You said he's posted "academic and other references", where does it pertain to saying that "Anglo-Indian" is exclusively to his definition? I'm staying on the points here, not looking to go into outer space.

Now, Romper is debating on the Definition of the term "Anglo Indian" for exclusion reasons, so you need to look at that the Article is based on the Definition from the Oxford's Source used and accepted worldwide, in their and I need a citation from credible sources saying what he believes, or the case is simply weak. You were also told on your page from Admin -J(t) that Rompers case was very weak.

The Indian Constitution definition is the country's definition for "Anglo-Indians" segment only in India, not the rest of the world (or as in worldwide view). Further, "Today's Asian-Western Couples are not Anglo-Indians" is an opinion piece article from a single author stating her own beliefs from observations (from 30-40 years old).

Not an academically accepted source to pinpoint a proper meaning (definition) like the Dictionary for "Anglo-Indian". This source and others ones you have presented including the Blog's and random sites has only talked about "Anglo-Indian society history in India and different groups and traditions. It did not say anything about it not existing in other parts of the world (or that it can't).

I'm not debating whether Anglo-Indians existed in India, but Romper is the one claiming that the "Anglo-Indians" are only exclusive to India, whereas the Highly credible source says it's an umbrella term also to Britain. It says that. Now please, I need something that states it contradicts that source, which is also currently the basis of the article in question.

HonestopL 10:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

HonestopL, there is indeed academic evidence that Today's Asian-Western Couples Are Not Anglo-Indians.

That, however, is not the crux of my arguement. I assert that there is a distinct ethnic group/community known as Anglo-Indians that warrants it's own article. You ask for academic evidence of this. This is a sensible request. I cite such evidence here:12345678911121314151617

The role of a dictionary is to list all possible definitions under the term in question. In contrast the role of an encyclopedia is to provide individual entries for distinct phenomena.

Thus I don't see how your arguement holds up.

For example the Oxford English Dictionary defines 'Thong' as:

noun

1 a narrow strip of leather or other material, used especially as a fastening or as the lash of a whip.

2 a skimpy bathing garment or pair of knickers like a G-string

3 North American & Australian a light sandal or flip-flop

Yet the Wikipedia page for Thong is thus.

You will note that Wikipedia does not incorporate all the information into one article.

I don't therefore see why we should do so for this subject

Romper (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempt at middle-ground

As the administrator who protected this article and advocated dispute resolution, I should take a stab at mediating the issue. Having read the arguments presented here, two main points can be drawn:

1. OED lists lists Britons of Indian or mixed English-Indian descent as a possible meaning of the term Anglo-Indian today, and therefore a reader coming to the article should expect to see some information about Indian or mixed English-Indian populations in Britain.
2. However, Britons of Indian or mixed English-Indian descent have largely stopped using the term "Anglo-Indian" to describe themselves, preferring "Indian British" or "mixed white-Asian" instead. Indeed, this BBC search shows that in today's English usage, "Anglo-Indian" rarely refers to people of Indian descent living in Britain.

Proposal 1

Therefore, I propose the following compromise:

• The section "History/Britain" shall terminate at ..."though these attempts at imposing anti-miscegenation laws were unsuccessful.[45]"
• The ensuing text, "As Indian women began arriving to Britain in large numbers from the 1970s" up to the end of the section should be forked into a separate section parallel to "The present Anglo-Indian community in India".
• "The present Anglo-Indian community in India" shall thus be renamed "Present communities" and subdivided into subsections "India" and "Britain".
• I would further suggest that the "Present communities/Britain" section mention that the communities in Britain previously called "Anglo-Indians" no longer use that name, and prefer the names given in that section. British Indian and Mixed (United Kingdom ethnicity category) should be linked with {{main}}.

I hope that's a helpful workaround. The discussion will probably be disrupted by the Wikipedia blackout tonight and tomorrow; that's fine, I've protected the article until the end of the month anyway. Deryck C. 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if the modern mixed race population are sometimes called Anglo-Indian I do not think this population is of particular encyclopedic interest, any more than Franco-Japanese or Icelandic-Congalese. Mention of this population should be restricted to that proposed by Deryck C. The main context of the article should be the mixed race population that developed in India as it then existed under British rule. A minority of those people did of course move to Britain.--Charles (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Deryck, thanks for your input. From my perspective this still leaves the problem that the article fuses together two completely historically and socialogically different ethnic groups/communities solely on the basis that one of them is sometimes referred to using the name most often associated with the other.

As an aside, I have serious misgivings about the accuracy of some of the content pertaining to historical British/Indian dual heritage persons. For example Ballard states that "until the beginning of the twentieth century the South Asian presence in Britain remained minute. At any given time it would have included no more than a few hundred Ayahs and Lascars, a rather smaller number of students seeking professional qualifications, whilst the number of Princes and other aristocrats – most of whom only made the briefest of visits – could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand.". Not the "thousands" refered to in the article and hardly the basis for a significant mixed-race community.

Also, I hope nobody minds but I have placed a request for opinions on WikiProject Ethnic groups as the article is covered by the project.

Romper (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 1 is definitely the one I would put my support behind, not 2 though. HonestopL 19:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Without an obvious destination to fork the content that needs to be removed through proposal 2, proposal 1 is indeed some sort of "middle ground" - one that satisfies no one, but is some sort of an interim keyhole solution. Deryck C. 10:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The content already appears in three distinct articles. Obviously most of the content in question is about interracial relationships, their dynamics and the reaction to them as opposed to the subject. Thus any new article specifically about mixed race persons of British and Indian descent in Britain could not consist of it. Romper (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The alternative, obviously, is to scrap all mention of "Anglo-Indian" populations in Britain, and just have a very brief mention along the lines of the following: "Since the early 20th century, there was a significant population of people of Indian or mixed British-Indian ethnic origin residing in Britain. Though sometimes referred to as Anglo-Indians (cite OED), people of Indian or mixed British-Indian ethnicity residing in Britain do not call themselves Anglo-Indians, preferring the terms British Indian and mixed White-Asian instead. The latter categorisation is also used by the UK census." Deryck C. 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion and seems like the best solution to me. Romper (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• As someone new to this dispute, I think this article should be confined to Anglo-Indians who became "mixed race" in South Asia, but also them and their descendants who emigrated to the UK & elsewhere (Merle Oberon etc), which is a notable part of their story. Those who became "mixed race" after emigration have an essentially different story and should be treated in other articles. This also reflects predominant usage of the term - "Anglo-Indian" is also sometimes used to described Brits who just worked in India, but that does not mean they should be covered here either. I think this all means I agree with Deryck. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Johnbod's thoughts are more in line with my second proposal than my first. After all this analysis I think the second proposal is better too - except that it's rather drastic and it'd be ideal if we can find another article to host the removed information. Perhaps fork the content into an article called Mixed White-Indian (United Kingdom ethnicity category)? Deryck C. 21:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Alot of the content was copied from an already existing section on the subject. Romper (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article and made some controversial edits, mostly in line with proposal 2. Feel free to edit the article now. Deryck C. 12:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi everyone, am I smelling another edit war? Can we sit down and discuss what we really want on the page please? Deryck C. 11:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not edit warring, but I didn't agree with the 3 users here who did support, that's not a consensus. And wikipedia is about inclusion, not censorship (and went further than the proposal stated). I believe the extra paragraph gives a better overall clarity, rather than outright censorship. You have to have a better than 3 sentence explanation. Not good enough. The extra 3 sentences I've added gives a better and more fluid starting for point. HonestopL 18:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. I think the paragraph you added gels poorly with the existing one and is superfluous.Romper (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The 3 sentences that 1 user edited left went further than the proposal stated', I didn't agree to that. The way is way rewritten was very poor, and gives no insight at all for a starting point. The extra paragraph is a starting point for reader to learn more, not deceive them, which is not acceptable.

How it was left with 1 papagraph, it doesn't even makes any sense. Also a few weeks of debate between a couple of users in NOT a consensus and could be seen as POV pushing (as the users in support have popped out of nowhere in an 2 year long dispute together, very coincidental? This is an on-going process and needs input over a long-period.

However, adding in an extra description that I did to give the reader a clearer picture what we are talking about in the "other populations section". We're not trying to deceive readers all over the world here. Have to give a better description to give the reader a starting point for reference. HonestopL 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think both Johnbod (whom I've met in person) and Charlesdrakew joined the debate because they're editors from England, and have been watching relevant notice-boards or talk-pages. Precisely because we don't want to deceive readers all over the world, we are opting to give only minimal coverage to the use of Anglo-Indians to people with Indian blood in Britain, which we have established is a misnomer that the OED has recorded. Deryck C. 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

HonestopL, Deryck's edits were proposal 2 practically verbatim. Romper (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No they weren't, he took out EVERYTHING, and if you look at proposal 1, it differs greatly. Do not exaggerate and 3 users do not form any type of consensus, this is on going. HonestopL 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the consensus?

I was a bit baffled by these 2 edit summaries: [5] Both sides claim they're acting with consensus when they reverted each other. Clearly that means we didn't reach a consensus. May I ask what we actually want? Meanwhile, please don't try to use "consensus" as a reason to revert each other. Deryck C. 17:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have said my piece over and over, not into games here. I put the extra paragraph into for reason stated multiple times above, and it's applicable, and gives more detail to the reader (for further research) HonestopL 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Will a "see also" hatnote be more appropriate for that purpose? Deryck C. 13:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A problem with the additional paragraph is that what it states is incorrect. It claims that mixed race presons in Britain of dual British/Indian heritage usually aquire their Indian ancestry paternally; yet Muttarak 2004 says that Indian females in Britain out-marry/cohabit at a higher rate than males (see Figure 1 on page 16 and Figure 3 on page 22). It also claims that intermarriage between Indians and Britons has been common in Britain since the 17th Century; yet Ballard states that "until the beginning of the twentieth century the South Asian presence in Britain remained minute. At any given time it would have included no more than a few hundred Ayahs and Lascars, a rather smaller number of students seeking professional qualifications, whilst the number of Princes and other aristocrats – most of whom only made the briefest of visits – could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand."

I have thus removed this paragraph. Romper (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cliff Richard and Vivian Leigh

Cliff Richard is the son of an Anglo-Indian train driver. Are you sure you want to deny that he is Anglo-Indian? And Vivian Leigh might have denied it, Merle Oberon always did, but that does not mean she is not Anglo-Indian. Her mother's name was Yackjee. Unusual in an Irish girl. Lao Wai 11:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Cliff Richard has native Indian ancestry too, so has been listed in the wrong place. John2o2o2o (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Spike Milligan

Could Spike Milligan be included here. His father was irish, serving in the British Army. S[pike served in the british Army in WW2 but later took Irish citizenship in protest to being told he had to sign the oath of allegiance. (46.204.39.152 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)).

How would that make him Anglo-Indian?--Charles (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, he was born in India and was a British citizen. I assume that with the absence of a "Brito-Indian" category, he would qualify as one of the two forms of Anglo-Indian. (46.205.51.15 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_milligan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.205.51.15 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The term Anglo-Indian specifically means people of mixed ethnicity under British rule. Milligan was all white British. Not eligible.--Charles (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the header in the article "or people of British descent born or living in the Indian Subcontinent or Burma, now mainly historical in the latter sense.[6" (37.30.70.224 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

"Official definition"

The official definition of Anglo-Indian, however, is slightly wider: "Anglo-Indian means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European descent but who is domiciled within the territory of India and is or was born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not established there for temporary purposes only". Under this definition, the mestiços (mixed Portuguese and Indian) of Goa are also included.

Where did this definition come from and how is this "official"? Can we cite some sources? AreJay 22:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• A Google search for a text string from that definition comes up with several good results. The original source seems to be Article 366(2) of the Indian Constitution. I don't believe we need to provide a source for everything in the article... but if you wish to double-check the authenticity of the definition: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a035833a480e4514802565530037bf7e?OpenDocument Poweroid 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're trying to establish the credentials of who an Anglo-Indian is by citing an "official definition", then there should be an appropriate reference (preferably in-line) to that definition. AreJay 04:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If this definition is correct, then the statement in the introduction that "living in the Indian Subcontinent or Burma, now mainly historical in the latter sense" is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.169.98 (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Joanna Lumley

The article lists Joanna Lumley as Anglo-Indian. Is this so in the terms given at the beginning of the article: "of mixed British and Indian ancestry"?. Countersubject 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe she IS Anglo-Indian. But I delete and people keep adding these names back with no proof :-( Poweroid 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

She was born in India of British parents. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Joanna Lumley had many ancestors born in India stretching back over several generations. In her case there was no intermarriage of any of her ancestors with the native indian population. To refer to her parents simply as "British" is misleading. Hasn't she written an autobiography? Won't that give you "proof"? John2o2o2o (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are all overlooking the fact that Anglo-Indian traditionally meant primarily people of Anglo origin settled in India. Intermarriage was neither a pre-requisite nor common. Most Anglo-Indians were and are of purely British ancestry. Lumley is not one of them, as she does not reside in India.101.98.169.98 (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Prince Williams

He is mentioned in here, but he is not considered Anglo-Indian, because Anglo-Indians are people that live and from India — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.246.149 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment and archive

• I've added the usual comment that people on the list need to be notable and citable.
• I've set this page up for auto-archiving.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC).

Leonowens, Karloff and Karloff

Anna Leonowens grand-mother is unknown and is suggested to have been Anglo-Indian (to have British and Indian ancestors). However this is speculation.

Anna and her sister Eliza are certainly Anglo-Indian in the sense of British people born in India. This does not affect the status of Eliza's grandson Boris Karloff and great-grand-daughter Sara Karloff.

If the speculation is true Anna and Eliza would be 1/8th or less Indian ancestry, and Boris 1/32 or less, Sara 1/64th or less. But it remains speculation, therefore I have removed the Karloffs from the list.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglo-Indian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227160600/http://www.scatteredseeds.co.uk/htmls/anglo-indian.html to http://www.scatteredseeds.co.uk/htmls/anglo-indian.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglo-Indian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219064447/http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/biodata_1_12/594.htm to http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/biodata_1_12/594.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sean Connery?

The "Notable people of Anglo-Indian descent" list includes "Sean Connery, Actor" under "Anglo-Indians of mixed South Asian and European descent (modern definition)".

There's a link and it's definitely to 'the' Sean Connery (James Bond, etc.).

But is he really Anglo-Indian? a) There's nothing on his Wikipedia page about it; b) He was born in Edinburgh, Scotland; c) His ancestors all seem to have been Scottish or Irish; d) I can't find any online mention of him having any Indian ancestry, or even of any of his ancestors having been in India.

See here for example about his ancestry, in an Irish newspaper: www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/connerys-wexford-roots-are-revealed-27272903.html

Is this a joke about his looks? He could possibly pass as being of Anglo-Indian descent, especially in later life (it's also been said that he looks Iranian). But there doesn't seem to be any basis in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.42.61 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Anglo-Indian Immigrants to Britain and other commonwealth countries

The article does not have anything on the Anglo-Indian population that left India after the Indian Independence to go to Britain, Canada, Australia etc. What has been the experience of the migrants and their descendents in their new countries? Are they totally assimilated ? Any new sourced content on this topic will be a welcome addition to the article. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I found this book on the topic. It should be a good source for content I would like to see on Anglo-Indian diaspora.Jonathansammy (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Mixed descent

How are some of the people listed in this article being classified as "mixed descent"? What sources tell us that Cary Grant and Cliff Richard are of mixed heritage? Nothing in either person's article tells us this. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Grant entirely, and moved Richard to the European section. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I discovered that the person who added Cary Grant added Sean Connery at the same time. Connery had been removed since then. Largoplazo (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether write to cast south Asia as 'colonised' as opposed to subjected to rule

"European traders and colonisers across the subcontinent..."

The prominent sentence above suggests there was some sort of successful effort to settle India with others in a majority of Europeans and mixed locals with Europeans. In fact it is better to distinguish the North American colonies where that was very much the aim, amongst other things, with Indian empire builders which was much more the aim in the more populous, more remote East. By the time it was clear many princely states would retain most of their autonomy, it was clear pipe dreams of moving large masses of Europeans over to India and founding large families like in the Americas was fanciful. In fact precarious governance by variously consent, diplomacy and shows of out-powering was a hallmark of much of British India, and worked even better than French India etc, showing classic colonisation was totally impossible for India. - Adam37 Talk 18:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Indian parliament

Some knowledgeable editor should briefly expand on the Anglo-Indian representatives in the Indian Parliament as such a system may be unknown (let alone surprising) to many readers, especially in the United States -Acjelen 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

• (I'd like it noted that some Yanks are aware of proposals, when decolonization was in progress, for "communal representation" for at least the Dalit, and i think also (by Jinnah?) for Muslims, and thus not much surprised.)

More to the point, tho, how about a lk to the "India (implemented)" sec of an article on such proposals, world-wide, whether implemented or not? --Jerzy·t

It's not difficult or odd if you read the House's article (Lok Sabha) as all sorts of tribes and castes are very entrenchedly protected with a quite fair number of seats, the same holds true for Anglo Indians who are a much smaller proportion, two discretionary-only seats out of 545. Hopefully French and Portuguese /other non-Indian ethnicities are also served well by those representatives and it does seem a little dated just to refer as it does expreslly to the (much larger among that cohort, Indian-British ethnicity minority). It is also a crying shame in today's day and age the London/U.S. as opposed to post-war German or Israeli model was adopted (or even Scottish today) as proportional representation would have well protected the incredibly diverse country's people in a place like India. The only benefit its odd compromise in the above regard achieves, is of course, often strong governments and well-seasoned dynasties of control.- Adam37 Talk 19:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Flag

Why is the English flag shown at the top of the page, when the article clearly refers to Indians of British origin? "Anglo" in this case means "of the UK", like Anglo-Dutch Shell or Anglo-Irish Agreement. Suggest changing to British flag. Stpaul (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)