Talk:Indian Civil Service

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contemporary "Indian Civil Services"

Contemporary "Indian Civil Services" are different than 'civil services' in colonial India. The information about colonial India is completely irrelevant today. 24.126.17.155 03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICS was NOT established by British. 24.126.17.155 03:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon, I understand that you've been checking out all my contributions lately, and trying to revert any change I make. That is NOT what wikipedians should do. Indian Civil Service is a historic entity, if you say it was not established by the British, who did it? The Mughals?? Please google for a bit and see the name of the civil service until 1947. Tagore's Brother was the first ICS from India (See Rabindranath Tagore. I did put most of the stuff in the history section, and you are more than welcome to add to the subsequent section about contemporary Indian Civil Service. But other than that, please don't take things personally, stalk me and undo whatever changes I make just out of personal revenge. Thanks. --Ragib 03:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. No hard feelings. But I stand by my article. Your article gives only the history of ICS and the information is outdated. 24.126.17.155 04:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check when the article was created. Today. Just an hour or so ago!! I started the article to fill out the gap, already about 20 articles had links to it, but the article was not present. This is how articles get started in Wikipedia, people make it better by add to it. I sincerely hope you saw that there was a {{India-stub}} at the end of my first version, and I hoped someone is going to add to it. The initial history section was my starting point for the article, and I am definitely not the right person to write on the current state of the Indian Civil Service. You are welcome to do so and I thank you for filling out that part. But don't call parts of article sheer "nonsense" because the history is really a well-documented fact.

Anyway, as you say, no hard feelings, and lets add more to make it even better. Thanks. --Ragib 04:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your latest article. 24.126.17.155 04:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Article

I did start discussion here, and I do welcome discussion. So, I am keeping the current content and adding the history part above it. --Ragib 03:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Foreign Service

Hi all:

Please refer

http://meaindia.nic.in/onmouse/ifs1.htm

specifically this:

In 1947, there was a near seamless transformation of the Foreign and Political department of the British India government into what then became the new Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations and in 1948 the first batch recruited under the combined Civil service examination system of the Union Public Service Commission joined the service. This system of entry has remained the staple mode of intake into the IFS to this day.

Indian Foreign Service is also part of Indian Civil Service (or Indian Administrative Service, if you will), though I doubt if they qualify to be ab All India Service (AIS)?? Hence not tampered with a later mention of AIS.

The website is maintained by the Ministry of External Affairs, GoI.

New categories

I've made a new category for India, and marked this as the lead article, in tidying up the worldwide Category:Civil services.--Mereda 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.indiastar.com/nehru.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many in the ICS?

" In 1942 there were 597 Indians and 588 British; most of the latter left at the time of independence." For someone like me (not knowing much about the issue) this is confusing. I would expect the ICS to consist of many thousands of workers. I guess that there must be an upper class of civil servants, and then a number of people working for the organization ICS in various ways (janitors, secretaries, "peons", etc.)? A little bit of context is necessary here, I think...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.198.194 (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ICS was very much the upper tier of administration, like the historical Home Civil Service. Moonraker (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1942 there were 597 Indians and 588 British; most of the latter left at the time of independence." - in 1942 both categories were British subjects, after independence the 'British' had different citizenship from the 'Indians' and were likely no longer eligible to serve in the ICS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/C_0007.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not done (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Civil Service (British India) → Indian Civil Service – No reason for disambiguation. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@142.161.81.20 and DuncanHill: Queried move request. And, modern India presumably has a civil service, under one name or another. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But as Indian civil service redirects to Civil Services of India, and the hatnote on that article, and the disputed past of the redirect Indian Civil Service, you might want to reconsider this. DuncanHill (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings on that issue either way. But so long as Indian Civil Service redirects to Indian Civil Service (British India), it makes sense that the latter should be moved to the former. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Indian Civil Service (ICS) is a proper noun and naturally should direct to Indian Civil Service (British India). "Indian civil service" is a common noun phrase and can be taken to mean the same as India's civil service which does still exist. example from GNews: Financial Post-25 Oct 2016 Failure of the EU free trade deal would leave Canada stranded "Discussions with India are going very slowly, in part because the Indian civil service is over stretched, and there is no guarantee the negotiations will succeed, said two people familiar with the talks.". Conclusion: The present set up is perfect per WP:CAPS WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. It isn't broken, so don't fix it. 09:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)

@In ictu oculi: In what way are you drawing a distinction between Indian Civil Service and Indian civil service in accordance with WP:SMALLDETAILS? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with WP:SMALLDETAILS, just the English language. By the way, if you're familiar enough with wp jargon to use WP:SMALLDETAILS, could you not register for an account? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that to say you are choosing to disregard WP:SMALLDETAILS? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An argument seems to have arisen about "Is case of initial letters enough to distinguish two titles?". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: I'm not sure that there can be an argument. Is WP:SMALLDETAILS not explicit in saying "yes"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems like a lot of petty lawyering to me and I'm not going to wade through all the policies and guidance mentioned. Much better things to do with my time than tie myself in knots about a fairly specious issue. The current title works and makes it explicit that this is not an article related to the present-day civil service of India (although, to be fair, the present-day version is very deeply rooted in the imperial version anyway). - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to wade through all the policies and guidance mentioned. Much better things to do with my time than tie myself in knots about a fairly specious issue. I'm not sure how your comment contributes to this discussion, but okay then. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because with around 200k edits and over 10 years' experience, I probably have a good sense of what works and what does not? You appear to be badgering respondents here, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1853 me siyil shvish ki pricha kha hue

Usa ya England ya india ya China 2409:4055:280:1FAC:3DFE:1822:3621:5F37 (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers possibly made up

The article states that

"In the first decades of the twentieth century, the imbalance in salaries and emoluments was so great that 8,000 British officers together earned a total of £13,930,554, while 130,000 Indians in government service (not just those in the Indian Civil Service proper) were collectively paid a total of £3,284,163."

It sources these numbers from this article, which attributes this information to J.T. Sunderland. The article itself does not cite a source, but the article's author, Shashi Tharoor, makes the same claim in his book "An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India". The source he cites in this book is J.T. Sunderland's "India in Bondage: Her Right to Freedom and a Place Among the Great Nations". I could not, however, find any mention of these numbers in the book. I did not find them in any of J.T. Sunderland's articles in Young India either. As far as I could find, the only source mentioning those numbers is Shashi Tharoor himself. MaquinaDeAnsiedade (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]