Talk:Company rule in India/Archive 1

comment

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

Maps

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

What about their atrocities ?

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

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

Oh, shut up you pair of ill educated nationalist tarts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivander (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The nationalist fervour really has no basis other than typical half-baked Indian history textbooks that children parrot in schools. The truth is that in all the places currently called India, the majority population were living under terrible suppression. No man without adequate family prestige could move beyond certain boundaries with merchant-ware and women. For the henchmen of the various minuscule feudal lords would pounce on them. Moreover the local languages were and still are terribly feudal, with horrible pejorative words reserved for the lower placed population. Actually the East India Company rule was much better than the Crown rule. For the Company rule did not give any statutory status to the Indian rulers who had played havoc with the lives of the people here for centuries. However it was to much content to modern filmmakers to make movies on imaginary themes of freedom struggles by these fiendish feudal classes. See this

The very chance to learn English language could give a person much liberation. A lot of effort was done by the local leaders to see that the people did not get a chance to learn English. For, if the lower placed persons learned English, the upper class would lose their rightful 'respect' in words.

The rule of law brought in by the Company was to control the hideous might of the feudal landlords over their surfs. Anyone can understand from this why the feudal rich did not love British rule. Even though, in current day times, they would love to send their children to England.

--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah! To white wash the British times, throw mud on the pre-British conditions in India? "Majority population lived under suppression"? Under who? Muslim rulers? Have you any idea of the economic, educational and political conditions in India when British came? English speaking is hardly an emancipation, that is what destroyed the well sustained traditional education. "Local languages were and still are terribly feudal"? Languages? I am afraid you are the folks who need to do some learning, both of history and of some objective method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.2 (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

user:Desione edits

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

Fowler how long do you think you can carry on this charade of white washing the evils and atrocities of British Raj and East India Company. Desione (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This page needs factual data and description first before any overall characterizations of Company rule can be added. Besides those characterizations have to reflect a consensus of scholarly opinion, or in the absence of such consensus, report on the controversy. Using words like "evil" is not a neutral approach to studying the subject. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

user:Desione, Please note that you have made four reverts in less than 24 hours: Revert1, Revert2, Revert3, Revert4. Please be advised that a 3RR violation is non-negotiable. As for the subject matter, please be advised that Company Rule, as the article says in its lead, began in 1757. This article is about that post-1757 history, not the pre-history, which is a part of British East India Company. Please also explain why you have added the section "Indo-British Social Interactions." The paragraph you have added there reads:

“ During the formative years of East India Company in India, there were few British women and it was quite common for company men to live with or marry an Indian women. Many men would adopt the attire, lifestyle, and language of the local Indians with whom they interacted with some going as far as adopting the Muslim aristocratic lifestyles complete with multiple wifes and harems. Conversions to Islam and Hinduism (to a lesser extent) also occurred. Many such relationships ended, with wifes and children saying back in India, when it came time for company men to return to UK. However, frequently, company men would move back along with their Indian wifes and mixed-race children. The children would then be given British names, get baptized into Christianity, and be raised as any other English child. The reverse situation where Indian men (usually sailors) would settle in UK with their wifes, families, and mixed-race children also took place at a much smaller scale. ”

Not only is it unsourced and contains spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors in every sentence, but it also doesn't quite fit under Company Policy. Could you please explain what you are attempting to do? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

When did I put it under company policy. Its in a seperate section titled "Indo-British social interactions" and here are the references: [2] [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Desione (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to add the text first and then references. Like I said earlier. Any POV can be well sourced. Desione (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

As I have pointed out many time earlier the article is benign much like the British Raj article which is not in tune with the well accepted nature of East India Company rule in India or that of British Raj. Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So unless you can prove that the "east India company rule" was benign and positive (as opposed to highly negative and eventful), please stop reverting my changes. Thank you. Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please point out which "well accepted scholarship" regards east india company rule in positive and benign light. Thank you Desione (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

characterisations of the Company's rule should be sourced to well-received scholarly texts (such as those already used in the article), reporting any controversy or consensus by faithfully following what such sources say. attempts to substantiate a pre-determined characterisation using picked quotes and stats from a diverse array of source spanning blogs to 18th century accounts is not acceptable. Doldrums (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given my sources above for "Indo-European Social Interactions". Also, my changes to the article (besides the Indo European Social Interactions" part whose sources are listed above) is quite decently sourced. In any case the description is a chain of events rather an interpretation. I leave the interpretation to the readers. Thanks. Desione (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question as to which "well accepted scholarship" portray East India Company in a positive benign manner as in the case of current version of the article. Please let me know. Thanks. Desione (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Points that I will be including in my version of article

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

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

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

Hodl on a minute, shouldn't you be putting all that in an article covering the 'India' BEFORE Company rule? It would certainly be more historically accurate if you did... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivander (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article that is being contemplated by User: Desione is apt to be titled: India before the British rule and also after the British rule.

Do trading, and see how the Indian sales taxmen pounce of you, to bring booty for the officialdom. See the real state of current day Indian poor. See this video: As to human rights, understand the standard behaviour an ordinary Indian gets in an Indian police station. As to loot of treasuries, in current times, it is only to feed the officialdom, by means of astronomical pays and perks. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

skewed

Would it be appropriate to add stuff about famines in Bengal or any other excesses committed by the company on this page? I can volunteer to do so unless there are certain objections. Personally, I have to agree that the article in its current state is skewed and does not adhere to the NPOV TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To expand the point, like the East India Company article, I find it very difficult to believe that the British did nothing wrong over the 250 years they were in the country. The British's poor education policy (which even the Singaporeans complain about in their museums) should definitely be mentioned - even though the situation wasn't that good in the UK at the time. So the article should have an NPOV attached to it. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your incredulity is not reason enough to slap on a POV tag on the article. We have to weigh the sources. Only viewpoints that are in concord with a preponderance of the sources, or at least a substantial number of them, make it into the article. It is not enough to produce just one source espousing one point of view.

This article is only about the rule of the East India Company which ended in 1858. The Company can't be held responsible for the inequities, real or perceived, of the entire British presence. I repeat again, you need to produce a substantial number of reliable sources (of the same quality as those currently in the article) in order to introduce new points of view. I am consequently removing the POV tag. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because sources haven't yet been found by me doesn't mean the article isn't bias. Its quite clear from the talk pages that material that claims that we (i.e. the British) behaved badly has been removed from the article. As this is a controversial topic and while some sources may say one thing it doesn't mean other sources don't say something else. And my claim of no knowledge isn't completely fair - I've been to the national museums in Delhi, Singapore and KL, and all of them criticise the educational policy and say that it only got a bit better in the late 19th century (after my government took full control). Eraserhead1 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't go on hearsay. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is fair to say that most standard histories of the period are British histories (histories written by 'Company historians', a self explanatory phrase). Many of the histories of the following period, i.e. British crown rule, are of a similar nature. This is in itself noteworthy. As for education policy, it is also noteworthy that by 1947 the literacy rate in India was around 9%. Whatever criticisms people make of post-Independence India, the huge increase in literacy since then really does mean that there was seriously bad governance previously. That's just my opinion of course, I'm not claiming that my opinion should be put into Wikipedia; but it would be surprising if similar opinions cannot be found, expressed by someone with more authority. Imc (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

a criticism section could be added, but with proper sources. just as the company historians and gazetteers of the raj dont have to say any bad things about the company raj, our nationalist and post independence writers hold the company responsible for all bad things that happened under the sun. so my proposal is we add a criticism section (that is sourced from works like rajneesh palme dutt's) which explicitly states that this criticism came from nationalists or anti imperialists etc. But as prof. fowler says tgis article deals only upto 1858. stuff that happened after 1858 belongs to the british raj article. --Sodabottle (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the dates and other stuff but I'm not sure about having a criticism section. One of the problems with such a section is that it is creating a section that by nature is going to advance a certain POV, additionally it makes the argument made by the nationalists and anti imperialists look weaker as they only have one section, whereas the "pro Company" sources have the rest of the article.

Wouldn't it be better to mix both groups of sources together throughout the article, so for example on Universities it could say something like the British founded xx University in 1880 to enhance education in India, however the Indian National Congress had been asking for more Universities to be founded so that more Indians could become educated. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Company rule ended in 1858. The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885. There was no nationalism in India during the duration of Company rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Its just an example which shows both POV's. There is no University of xx either. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give equal time to different POVs. Assertions here have to backed up by a preponderance of sources. It is for this reason that we use textbooks by well known academic presses (in which the consensus of sources has been accounted for and peer reviewed), not, for the most part, research monographs or journal articles. It is always possible to find sources in the latter category for even the craziest assertions. Their use, except very sparingly, opens the article up to the dangers of synthesis. (The Imperial Gazetteer has been used mainly for factual content, not for interpretative content.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. The education section is based mainly on Peter Robb's History of India, Eric Stokes's Peasant Armed, and Judith Brown's Modern India. Of these, the first and third are textbooks, and the second a well-worn monograph about the rebellion of 1857 by a major historian of south asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia *does* give equal status to different POV's if they are both legitimate and as Sodabottle points out anything sourced from the history written by the company as well as stuff written by contemporary Indians are both going to be bias. Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at this discussion at the request of Fowler&fowler and from what I read above, all of you are expressing very similar ideas. Let me see if I can summarize the main points as I see them, and let me know if any of you disagree with anything:

1. This article covers the Company rule in India, which lasted till 1858.
2. The article should reflect what reliable sources say and the weight they place on various events and factors. In particular the article should reflect the "good" and "bad" aspects of the company rule, again weighed by coverage in reliable sources.
3. Contemporaneous history accounts (i.e written in 17th-19th century) are not always reliable or unbiased and should be used with care (essentially if and how modern secondary history texts cite them). This is true for both British as well as "nationalist" historians from the period.

There was a slight disagreement regarding whether a specific Criticism section should be introduced, but I think the consensus (which I ardently support!) is that the different views should be integrated into the body of the article, instead of being segregated by varying POV. The only remaining issue is Eraserhead1's (and perhaps others') belief that if one searches, one could find more sources that highlight the negative aspects of company's education (and other ?) policies. Fowler contends otherwise or at least says that such sources are a distinct minority, and personally I am not in a position to know. However there is no point in discussing hypotheticals - instead interested editors can locate specific reliable sources and propose text to add to the article, and then the reliability and due weight concerns can be discussed and concretely handled.
Would anyone object to any point of this summary ? I am open to revising it to pin-point where the dispute really lies, so that it can be addressed. Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare that there is not much point in talking in hypotheticals. A general criticism section for the sake of criticizing the EI company is not helpful either. Not only because all the flaws of the British empire in India cannot be dumped on the backs of the East India Company (which, in all fairness, did not really rule all of India for most of the 1757-1858 period) but also because criticism for the sake of it is not a great idea. Better to integrate any critical material (properly referenced and not original research) into the main text of the article. Of the two specific issues mentioned above, one - famines - does have a few reliable sources (Sen and Gilmour leap to mind but I'm skiing in the alps and have no texts handy!) but I'm not sure if they can be attributed to the EIC. The other, education, seems nebulous and OR (using the percent of Indians educated at the end of 1947 and comparing that to the number today is definitely OR). Eyeballing the article and skimming the sections, I'd say that the accounts are fairly factual though the separation of company versus British rule is not always clear (particularly in the railway section). It is entirely possible, and indeed quite likely, that the account reads as more favorable to the EIC than should be the case, but, failing the production of reliable sources for other views, I'm not sure what can be done. Perhaps a listing of specific points with reliable sources would help (I will gladly check sources when I'm home next week). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. What you guys say generally seems to be fair enough. Eraserhead1 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare and RegentsPark, for your prompt responses. Your summary, Abecedare, is a good one. I should add that although some people have talked about "Company historians," I have in fact not used any. Of the 146 footnotes (including repeats), none are to any Company historians; most are, in fact to various contemporary general histories, though some factual content has been cited to the Imperial Gazetteer of India, published in 1909, more than half a century after the demise of Company rule. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Famines have been alluded to. The Bengal famine of 1770 is mentioned in the Revenue collection section. The Company's culpability there is not recognized by all historians, given that the famine occurred during a period when the Company had the Diwani (the rights to revenue), but not the nizaamat (the administration and implementation of criminal law). The only other famine that ravaged British India during Company rule was the Agra famine of 1837–38 (the Chalisa famine and the Doji bara famine struck regions governed by Indian rulers). The Company did provide some relief. This (as well as the Company's ambivalence) is alluded to in the Canals section. The construction of the Ganges Canal was in fact fast tracked because of the famine, which largely affected the "Agra province," or the mid-Doab region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the companies responsibility in the 1770 famine isn't recognised by a significant number of historians then both sides of the argument should be included in the article with reasons. Regardless if there are sources for it it should probably be explicitly included (and not just alluded to) in the article. This should also apply to the Companies good efforts with regards to the 1837-1838 Agra famine. Eraserhead1 (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Lakh?

The Post and Telegraph section includes monetary amounts, such as Rs. 5 lakh. Rupees is the currency, so that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the use of the unit lakh when simply writing the number as 500,000 makes a lot more sense and makes it more accessible as an encyclopedic article. Reading one article shouldn't require the reading of another to understand it, unless actually necessary. I typically don't make edits, so I'll leave this to someone else's judgement Omnichad (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this (all year!). Will look at that section again. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

British soldier in India is essentially just someone's personal ramblings, of unencyclopedic tone and very low general quality. I doubt there's any salvageable content, and we might as well just redirect it to here. Moreschi (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Suggest looking at the discussion on that talkpage; I redirected, and the article creator resisted the change. If you can form consensus there we can get this over with. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the British soldier in India article, is pure and weasely synthesis, and needs to be deleted/redirected, this page would definitely not be the right target. This article is concerned with the dominion of the East India Company over the Indian subcontinent, which lasted till 1858 and predates the (large scale) advent of the British soldiers. I would guess that Army of India or Indian Army (1895–1947) would be a more natural target. Abecedare (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Historiography and modern Indian view of Company rule

it would be helpful to include historiography section which should discuss about where all the primary information comes from. Indian nationalists and (therefore) even Indian text books dont give a rosy picture of the company rule in India. This section can be included at the end of the article. --CarTick 15:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvnb/Sfn cite errors

This article has a phenomenal number of citation errors whereby the footnotes are not linked to the sources. It is a common problem with Harvnb/Sfn templates, but I am unsure how to fix it. Can someone with more clue do so, please? - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

[10] This script] may help to highlight the issues. - Sitush (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement for "Company rule in India"

This article is written like an advertisement for Easter Indian Company. It totally lacks coverage of cultural, social, economic oppression carried out by the East India Company. --Natkeeran (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You cant advertise something that has not existed for over 150 years. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is biased in favor of Colonization of india, with a strong British/euro centric point of view. It is like writing about Nazi Germany without writing about The Holocaust. The colonization, racism, violence and oppression carried out by the Company is barely mentioned. The company may be not in business, but its ideology and successors are very much in business. --Natkeeran (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Present day Nepal's many parts were under British rule from 1816 to 1857. Check this fact under the lands seized by British forces after the anglo-nepal war in 1814-1816. The segowlee treaty mentions it clearly. Hence in the section "today a part of", Nepal also needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyfie (talk • contribs) 08:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Parts of Nepal were under British rule.

Present day Nepal's many parts were under British rule from 1816 to 1857. Check this fact under the lands seized by British forces after the anglo-nepal war in 1814-1816. The segowlee treaty mentions it clearly. Hence in the section "today a part of", Nepal also needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyfie (talk • contribs) 08:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Start of Company Rule in India

The article says in the opening paragraph: Company rule in India refers to the rule or dominion of the British East India Company over parts of the Indian subcontinent. This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company.

The above sounds incomplete and misses a major incidence - that of Anglo-Maratha Wars. The below two sources clearly say that with the end of Maratha power, the British gained dominance over Indian subcontinent. Hence I am adding one sentence. Kindly do not delete abruptly without discussing on talk page.

• https://www.britannica.com/event/Maratha-Wars
• https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uzOmy2y0Zh4C&pg=PA271&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit20081980 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about this. The reference says "we can speak of a British Indian Empire from 1818 onward" which, by itself, seems reasonable. But Company Rule is rather a different thing. It refers to the point when the EIC began administering territories in India (i.e., the point where it changed from a commercial enterprise to an administrative one). That could be after the battle of Plassey when it gained control of Southern Bengal, or when the company became a revenue collecting agency after the battle of buxar. By the time of the Maratha wars, the company was already ruling vast territories in India. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. Have you read the below statement from Britannica Encyclopedia? It clearly indicates that British gained power only after fall of Marathas. So, your statement that By the time of the Maratha wars, the company was already ruling vast territories in India sounds totally incorrect.

The third war (1817–18) was the result of an invasion of Maratha territory in the course of operations against Pindari robber bands by the British governor-general, Lord Hastings. The peshwa’s forces, followed by those of the Bhonsle and Holkar, rose against the British (November 1817), but the Sindhia remained neutral. Defeat was swift, followed by the pensioning of the peshwa and the annexation of his territories, thus completing the supremacy of the British in India

Please reply. I am not reverting your edit for now, but will do so in a few days' time. Amit20081980 (comment) 12:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Britannica is referring to British supremacy, i.e., when the British became the supreme power in India. Company rule in India refers to the transition of the EIC from a commercial enterprise to a governing enterprise, which was much earlier. See the statement "became directly involved in governance" in 1773. Perhaps we could say something like This is variously taken to have commenced in 1757, after the Battle of Plassey, when the Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddaulah surrendered his dominions to the Company,[4] in 1765, when the Company was granted the diwani, or the right to collect revenue, in Bengal and Bihar,[5] in 1773, when the Company established a capital in Calcutta, appointed its first Governor-General, Warren Hastings, and became directly involved in governance.[6] By 1818, with the defeat of Marathas followed by the pensioning of the Peshwa and the annexation of his territories, British supremacy in India was complete. instead? --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I will edit as suggested by you. -- Amit20081980 (comment) 10:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Expansion Chronology

Why does this end in 1803 when the Maratha were not defeated until 1818? LastDodo (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The viaducts

Vatsmaxed has removed a picture of the Dapoorie viaduct in the railways section, claiming that it was built in 1858, and not 1854. He has moreover replaced it with a lower resolution picture of the Tanah Viaduct. Ian J. Kerr, of the University of Manitoba, author of scholarly works on Indian railways, however, states very clearly, "An example of the former was the Dapoorie Viaduct, completed in 1854, and still in use today, that links Bombay Island to the mainland near Thana." (see: Kerr, Ian J. (2007), Engines of Change: The Railroads that Made India, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 48, ISBN 978-0-275-98564-6) The British Library moreover concurs with this characterization of Dapoorie. Nowhere was it claimed that Dapoorie was the first. Its picture, which has stood in this article for upward of 10 years is clearer and higher resolution than its replacement. I have therefore undone Vatsmaxed edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler No, the British Library reference is completely wrong. Dapoorie viaduct was not the first railway bridge in India (which u have agreed), neither does it connects Bombay island to mainland. It appears that British Library itself referred it from wrong sources, leading to wrong information here in wikipedia. Same stands from many other so called reputed sources which either themselves were referred by British library or referred to British library. And something wrong staying for 10 years really doesn't mean it is correct or it should never be corrected.

Let me explain everything: The railway line is as follows

Bombay (now Shivaji terminus) – Tannah (now Thane) – Tannah viaduct (now Thane viaduct) over Thane creek formed by Ulhas river – Callian (now Kalyan) (on mainland) – Bor Ghat (now Khandala Ghat) crossing western ghats – Dapoorie viaduct (now Dapodi viaduct) over Mula river – Bhamburde bridge (now Shivajinagar bridge) over Mutha river – Poona (now Pune). I have not mentioned all stations as well as all viaducts/bridges in between as its not possible. Please also refer to google earth, wikimapia etc by your own.

The railways started in India from Bombay, with Bombay to Thane being the first leg (started operations in 1853), Thane to Kalyan being second leg (when Thane viaduct was built) (started operations in 1854) and later few further extensions to Pune (when Dapodi viaduct was built) (started operations in 1855-56). ( I was wrong when i mentioned it as 1858 in edit summary. I apologise for the same.)

So i have re-corrected it, but have kept colored versions of both photographs with correct captions below.

Note: For wikimapia reference, see below.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=19.112732&lon=73.095474&z=11&m=w Please zoom to Thane railway station with Thane viaduct over Thane creek on Ulhas river visible on east

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=18.576860&lon=73.835077&z=14&m=w Please zoom to Dapodi railway station with Dapodi viaduct over Mula river visible on south

I have used bold fonts to simply highlight some important parts and not with any other intentions. Vatsmaxed (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have resolved the issues with this edit. The explanation is in the edit summary. I have added two sources which while not the best, are more reliable by Wikipedia standards than Wikimapia, which we can't cite. I have removed Tanna, which is too low-res. I have changed the picture caption to Bombay Presidency in which Poona was.

Thanks for resolving the issues. But I have removed this line, The viaduct was completed in 1854 and the corresponding ref titled, Engines of Change: The Railroads that Made India. The reference says incorrect stuff, An example of former was Dapoorie viaduct, builtin 1854 and still in use today, that links Bombay island to mainland near Thana. Actually, the Thana viaduct was built in 1854 when the Bombay Thana line was extended to Callian (Kalyan) and this viaduct links Bombay island to Indian mainland. Dapoorie viaduct, was built later in 1855 and Pune station opened in 1855-56. As I explained earlier this reference provides wrong info. It appears that sadly many reputed news sites, books by reputed publications have referenced this incorrect info from British Library, or all of them including BL referred to a common parent reference, which also is indeed incorrect. The reason I am removing in this case is because if some future wiki editor refers this reference, say after 10 years, he will restore the wrong description here and so elsewhere, simply restarting the cycle.

As you suggested in wikipedia edit summary that, this image could be removed and replaced by another one. The only thing as per you, is that the image should be equal or greater in quality. I would definitely support this view, as it will stop confusion once for ever for future readers. I would like you to have a look at images in below wikimedia categories to find suitable replacement, Category:Railway viaducts in India and Category:Photographs of Western India. Volume II. Scenery, Public Buildings If no suitable replacement is found, i suggest to remove the image. An image less will not be an issue for this article. In my opinion, removing this image would the best solution of all. Vatsmaxed (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The four images you have now, and their captions, are fine. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)