Talk:Indian Army/Archive 1

Needs expansion and editing. A significant portion (as on Nov 5, 2004) seems to be more suited to "Indian military history". I am unable to devote the time needed to do this now. If no one wants to take it up, I'll tackle it in few months' time.

Indian Army intentions in East Pakistan

i think this article seems a little biased...for example, india "seized the opportunity to weaken its long time foe" ...one could as easily say india "acted quickly to aid the displaced citizens of east pakistan and stop the massacres." ...maybe it is just me...

Well I think it is both ways. For example how many military persons india send in Sudan? of course one can argue about the local factors. But in general opportunity was a great concern too. Then you can see that all of the leadership of Awami League went to calcutta. I have read a lot about this topic but I personally believe opportunity was main reason and 'helping' was pretended reason. but it is very difficult to say in NPOV the 'true intention', but the biggest argument going against it is that this is the only case where India 'helped' by using military power. In Srilanka, in kashmir (when it was governed by Hindu Raja), India never used military to 'help' people. In this article indian attack on jonagarh is also not mentioned. Other things whch are not mentioned in this article that India lost one third of kashmir in 1948. Pakistan army was never engaged in that war. Not that Pakistani Leadership didn't want it, but then English Chief of army refused to obey orders from Jinnah. It was fought by civilians (including Pakistani Tribals of North Waziristan). But I am not editing it because mostly it will be on watch list of Indians who won't like these things to be mentioned. and (in my opinion) this article is not very popular article. So starting an edit or some thing like this won't be such a good Idea. I have started to learn to live with NPOV on wikipedia :-(

Zain 22:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

@ Zain engineer

Yes but India and Bangladesh share a common border, India and Sudan do not. While India posessed the force deployment capabilities, it can be argued that there were countries better equipped and closer to the region that could have done the job but instead, they chose not to. The U.S. being the world's police force could have easily sent troops to Sudan but they did not. I agree though that India did have other intentions when it liberated East Pakistan. I believe though that India's main reason in helping to liberate East Pakistan was because of all the Bengali refugess pouring into India. At the time, India was barely able to feed its people and thus was in a way, forced to declare war if only to prevent its people from dying of starvation.

Yindu Raja is not a problem for India. Nor is a Muslim Raja. Being a secular democratic nation. The Middle path away from religious fanaticism and anethism, India choose secularism. The president of India is a Muslim, Prime minister is a Sikh, Leader of opposition is a Christian and Hence being a secular nation, home to all religion, no one can claim parts of India in the name of religion. Claiming that some lower rung officer did not heed the order is telling lies. Jinnah had the power to sack him and sent him to jail. All men fighting were Pakistani men and not the British. Jinnah is responsible not only for dividing the nation in the name of religion but also for all the hostility that continue even today. Chanakyathegreat 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's just take two more examples in the neighbourhood, though Tamils were repressed in Sri Lanka and refugees came to India, India sent the army against the LTTE ( not to mention that the Sri Lankan govt then covertly gave support to the LTTE) But did not attack and change the government in power in Sri Lanka. Refugees was the public posturing, they still continue to come even from Bangladesh, and we are not attacking it. India having two fronts with Pakistan , and reducing it to one front was the strategic reason behind the move. The refugees was the "fig leaf" that allowed the action as India then did posture as a peaceful nation , to the extent that the first Pokhran nuclear explosion was called an explosion for peaceful purposes- whatever that means. Then in Nepal despite all the violence India did not send it's army in to Nepal. Both these examples being in the neighbourhood. The opportunity to cut Pakistan down was too good to resist in 1971.And in hind sight it was a good tactical move- A combined Pakistan would have been a far greater menace for India in the troubled 80's with terrorism in Punjab, J&K, Assam and the Far east. Haphar 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that Indian peacekeepers are serving under the U.N flag in many parts of Africa and even in Lebanon. Peace never means inactivity and impotence nor aggression and madness. India never sent a peacekeeping force against LTTE or the Government of Sri Lanka. The main objective of the peacekeeping force is peace enforcement. The war against the LTTE started after the suicide of their cadres and the subsequent attack on the Army that followed. The refugee from Bangladesh is still because of poverty in Bangladesh. There is no genocide going on there at present. Even though the terror activity has increased, it is in the hands of Bangladesh government to act to save Bangladesh from becoming a terrorist nation. The firt explosion is called a peaceful explotion to make it clear that the weapon will not be used offensively (no first use policy) and is for defensive purpose to maintain status quo with other nuclear powers. No need to send an army to Nepal since it was solved politically and helped in the restoration of democracy in Nepal. Today the answer for the question has the creation of Bangladesh helped India? is yes. As Harpar said India don't have to deal with a Terrorists from two fronts. Chanakyathegreat 05:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Indian National Army a Predessecor?

In this article it claims the INA was a predessecor to the modern Indian Army. Besides Bose and a very few students recruits, most of the INA were considered traitors after the war and NOT allowed to serve again in the Indian military or militaries. Thus, while the INA is an offshoot of one of the predessecors, is it truly a predessecor of the MODERN Indian Army? What traditions carried over? TaylorSAllen 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not by Indians but by the British, the Indians greeted them with due respect and the restrictions were made by the British army. The INA soldiers were considered retired personnel and given due respect and they got state pension and other provisions enjoyed by retired soldiers. Many traditions like the song Kadam Kadam Badaye Ja is marching tunes of the Modern Indian Army. Chanakyathegreat 13:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you mean British Indian Army. They proper British Army never had massie garrisons in India. Also, it should be noted that a single song is not much of a carry over, and pensions, while homage, are still not passed on traditions. If the INA is added as a predecessor, shouldn't the proper British Army be added as well? It left quite a mark, much more than the INA. I will admit I am biased on this, being the only American Jingoistic Tory today, so please give me the other side of the issue. TaylorSAllen 21:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian army's predecessor was the "British Indian Army", as all ranks of the British Indian Army continued to serve in the Indian, Indian Army after 15th August 1947, except those that went over to Pakistan or chose to move back to Britain ( this for the British citizens). Regiments such as Skinner's horse, were started by the British and still continue, Regimental history of many regiments starts from British days, and campaigns celebrated include the British Indian Army campaings ( such as Cassino in Italy in WWII). There is no regiment of the INA origin in the Indian army, formation signs used by the british are still in use for some formations, the ranks are the same ( as well as the spelling and pronounciation). Even training regiments in the Indian Military Academy inlcudes El Alamein and Cassino as company names. If Kadam Kadam badaye jaa has been used, well the Army bands also play Colonel Bogey and The Last Post. In fact the Last post is used at official cremations of soldiers who die in action as well as the unknown soldiers memorial at every evening flag removal ceremonyHaphar 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talked with Haphar on my User talk: TaylorSAllen and we agreed that British Indian Army should be replaced with Army of India (with specification of being from the later Raj, perhaps? That would also mean the removal of the British Indian Army, as it was an integral element of the force. Also, I would say personally that the INA still needs to be removed. Haphars evidence demonstrates this. 69.137.202.138 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case my linking to my own user page wasn't enough, that IP is me. TaylorSAllen 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is a single tradition being passed on, INA becomes a predessecor. It must not be restricted to regiments, there are ideologies etc that are passed on like this “Good leaders show greater than average willingness to take risks and engage in unconventional actions to attain their goals”. ___Netaji Subash Chandra Bose

Source:[1]

Chanakyathegreat 14:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After World War II the I.N.A was on the losing side and did not exist as a ground force anymore. . All it's surviving members were treated as freedom fighters by the Indian governement after independence, however none were reinducted into the Indian Army,thus as a force the I.N.A did not evolve into the Indian Army but ceased to exist. However the force that defeated it- the British Indian Army, was in existence and the officers and men went on to form the Indian Army. So it's hard to agree that the INA was a predecessor. Not when the Army that beat it went on to become the Indian Army.You can say it predated it , but it was not a predecessor to the Indian Army. Haphar 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Them?

- Yet another Grammar Nazi

The Indian Army is so large that it has devoted several corps to the striking role, making them one of the most powerful non-NATO armies. ???

Dude(tte?), making them one of the most powerful Non-Nato armies? Making whom one of the most powerful Non-Nato armies? ... the Corps? Or do you mean the Indian Army?

I'm not contesting your point - just the grammar. It is a bit confusing, you know. Try replacing 'them' with 'The Corps' or 'The Indian Army'. Unless, you mean the Indian Army Corps. But then you mentioned 'several Corps'...Some clarity here?

--getkashyap 20:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Newton wrote that sentence: [2]. A Corp is a part of the army and hence army and corps are two different terms. So in the sentence The Indian Army is so large that it has devoted several corps to the striking role, making them one of the most powerful non-NATO armies, them obviously refers to the Indian Army and not the Indian Army Corps. I don't see any grammatical error in this sentence. Thanks --IncMan 21:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not confusing for me either. A corp is not compared to an army and vice versa so this automatically assumes the logic that "them" or "they" mean similar comparison. Idleguy 05:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Another grammatical issue, this time it is purely order but, in the side template Indian military history is the first link, followed by the various military forces and the the Army day. Shouldn't the former be in a position post the center and the latter? TaylorSAllen 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My poor Indian friends! Your army is a large army? Don't make fun again and again. Do you know what is the appearance of India in the world? It's an elephant. It looks big but so weak. Only a mosquito can bite him and blood. A mouse can kill him. I think most Indian haven't gone abroad, so they don't know what is the changs outside. They think there is a floating drome can make them powerful. It's shortsighted out and out. Your floating aerodrome is only a target in the Indian sea. it's so weak that only a common Pakistan anti-ship missile can smash it easily because the technical of the missile is from China. I forgot the time of the war between India and China Because it is a such unimportant war of China. In this war, our army chased the Indian army till to we can see the light of Bombay. I heard this story of an old soldier who attended the war. He said it was so surprised to him that they didn't meet any fight back before they received the command of returning back to China. The India army like a homeless dog. What puzzled to the old soldier is the India army is so stupid to displease China firstly. I think the India don't know the result of the hit between a egg and a stone. My poor Indian friends! Where is your Arjun tabk anf LCA. They are armed now. Even the Russian Su-35 and Miger-29 are export to India, it is no matter for China. Because you can not produce them. If you destroied one, you are lost one. Please go to Chinese website to see the new type fighter J-10, J-11. The new submarine, new Zeus shield warship, and they are all made by ourselves. Don't delired US will help you. I think US will not so stupid to help an inessential country. US makes friends to you because he want to use you. The India is only a chessman of US. Don't forget the war years ago. If you forgot, we will give you a new lesson, a serious lesson. Do you know why the Chinese army stopped aggressive in the situation of drive straigt in to India. I tell you. The reason is Chairman Mao said India is a wild country, it is so difficult to administe him. Let him be. If we want, we can take back easily.

Expansion of Sections

Phew!! Just finished expanding the 1965 war. Did the 1947-48 one earlier, but will have to return to expand it a little more. Will get down to the rest later but some help on the 1971 war would be appreciated. And the equipment section does need some expanding and editing too. Could someone...? --Tigger69 August 21, 2005

Well it is great work, but is there a page on the 1965 war and aren't you just duplicating that page? Perhaps if there isn't there ought to be. If you expand every article by that much this article will be too big. Do you think that a brief summary and a link to a war specific page would be better? Lao Wai 11:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian War

The evidence that the Chinese offered to talk to the Indians and the Indians imposed such serious preconditions that there was no way the Chinese could accept is well documented. See Neville Maxwell's India's China War for instance. And clearly the Chinese could not withdraw from AP because (a) it did not exist then and (b) the Chinese dispute the ownership of this territory. If the article is to be neutral it cannot take sides over who rightfully controls the NEFA. Lao Wai 11:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not take books written by some authors for reference. The only condition which India kept was that China returned to the positions held by it before Oct 20. That wasn't a heavy precondition because China had taken over these areas illegally. Besides China captured Aksai Chin after Oct 20 and its still under Chinese administration. I agree that previous version wasnt nuetral and accurate but what you wrote is POV too. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we don't take books what are we supposed to do? I can get you the references to the official Chinese and Indian government communications (which have been published by both sides in English) if you like. If that was the only condition why didn't India start talking after China did, in fact, withdraw to the Oct 20 lines? There was nothing illegal in China's actions unless you accept NEFA belongs to India (which China did not). China held Aksai Chin before 1962, it still holds it today. There is nothing POV in what I wrote. Point out the offending bits and we can find a neutral and factual formulation. Lao Wai 15:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China never moved back to the positions held by it before Oct 21. Aksai Chin still remains under Chinese control. Now thats a nice way of solving things: First invading a country and then offering peaceful talks. Actually it is not a bad way of changing yr image from an agressor to a peace lover. Unfortunately, I'm not buying that. --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes China did actually. They held Aksai Chin before the war and they held it after. How else did they manage to build a road across it and use that road for 12 years (7 of them without the Indians even noticing) if they did not hold it? Look I am happy to provide all the evidence you want on this. Lao Wai 15:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure go ahead. It was hard for the Indian troops to monitor this area because of its rigid terrian; the main reason why those roads werent noticed. China constructed those roads in an area administered by India (though disputed) w/o even notifing them. Thats illegal. Its sad that China made such a huge incursion into India and the army wasnt able to notice that. Also, China constructed roads across NEFA and not Aksai Chin. Most of aksai chin was captured after Oct 20 while Chinese troops made incursions into NEFA way before. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hard for them to observe but easy enough for the Chinese engineers to build a road (and incidentally for the Chinese Army to enter Tibet from Xinjiang)? Come on now. India claimed the area (when they became aware of the fact that China did) but they did not administer it. Not a single official, policeman, Indian citizen or soldier was present from 1950 to 1962. It is only illegal if the Indian own it which the Chinese do not accept. China did not build any roads across AP/NEFA that I know of. China did not take Aksai Chin in 1962 because they already held it. Sources tomorrow. Lao Wai 16:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you find some trustworthy sources :) --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No sooner said than done. How about Karnik, V. B. China invades India: the story of invasion against the background of Chinese history and Sino-Indian relations, Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1963, or Fisher, Margaret W.,Leo E. Rose and Robert A. Huttenback, Himalayan battleground: Sino-Indian rivalry in Ladakh, London: Pall Mall Press, 1963? All point out that China held Aksai Chin in 1962 and India did not. Sure India's claim lines were far forward, but that was an irrelevance. Lao Wai 14:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China basically went back and rejected the mac mahon line (signed by its tibetian protectorate), thereby causing the whole problem. it does not matter if manchu china made the agreement with british india, the fact remains that the line demarcated most of kashmir on the eastern border and AP to india. when the commies came to power, they dismissed the line drawn by "imperialistic" nations and stating it was only tibet that signed it. however they seized tibet, and dismissed the treaty as invalid. they were happy to take control of the assets and the land, but on the other hand did not adhere to the treaties made by tibet. a case of all profits and no losses accepted. no matter what form of government comes to power, one has to adhere to agreements, else the state loses its respect and becomes suspicious in the eyes of the world. this is exactly the case with china. Idleguy 15:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well no. China has always maintained that the McMahon Line is invalid because China did not sign any treaty giving it away. There is a claim that the Tibetans did so, but that hardly counts. All Chinese governments of all political persuasions have rejected the McMahon Line. But the Chinese Communists have said they will recognise the Line if there is a new treaty. Which the Indians have refused to even talk about. The problems in 1962 came when the Indians began to push north of the McMahon Line to where they thought the border ought to be. Nor, of course, did the Line demarcate anything in Kashmir - it applied to Tawang/NEFA/Arunachal Pradesh. The PRC, whatever else you can say about them, has an impeccable record of abiding by Treaties even if they are imperialist in origin. And they have been happy with the McMahon Line in Burma. The problem is India. And the racism of those who just hate Chinese people and accuse them of all sorts of things they have not done. But that is neither here nor there. The point is this article. And this article ought to maintain a NPOV. And should be accurate. Which I am trying to make it. To say China withdrew from AP is not neutral. Lao Wai 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, quite an argument here ! Gentlemen, if I may contribute a (actually, my)mite here and if it helps... :). I worked in the bit about the Henderson-Brookes report in the section and thats actually the only document that will put to rest all such arguments and related speculation. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to them, succesive Indian governments refuse to release it - despite calls from some of its most distinguished civil servants, analysts and politicians. Speculation can then only centre around India's mistakes in the whole affair. The Chinese are to blame only as far as (1) 'betraying' -- and thats too strong a word -- Nehru's efforts at forging a 'civilizational' friendship, and (2) playing the smarter version of the Great Game from the previous century. Don't forget Nehru lobbied, and quite succesfully too, for China's "rightful" seat on the Security Council in place of Formosa/Taiwan. Its really too long, complex and muddled a story, but nevertheless absolutely fascinating, to explicate for an one person. The Chinese feeling of betrayal though, began when India readily provided refuge to the Dalai Lama, and all the talk of human rights, civil liberties, neo-colonialism and democracy that followed. Some diplomats have written about Mao's subsequent rage - he rarely forgot anything - and so too Zhou Enlai's acute problems in balancing Sino-Indian relations thereafter. And we musn't forget Krishna Menon's blithely moronic contributions to the whole affair, single-point advisor that he was to Nehru on these matters. Actually, that was Nehru's big mistake - trusting that near-sighted cretin to the hilt on an issue whose unfortunate conclusion would ultimately prove too much of a shock for India's tallest Prime Minister and statesman.

Anyway, to cut to the chase: Maxwell's book is an excellent one, and probably the most highly regarded. I would have to agree with most of what Lao Wai is saying - atleast on the broad legalities. China - specifically the PRC of Mao - did not sign this agreement, and therefore did not recognize the MacMahon line. It did not for a lot of other borders too. I mean, it almost went to war with the Soviet Union over their common border!! the PRC's record there is not quite as spotless, but that's understandable, considering the immediate revolutionary past and its starkly repudiatory leanings, and needs. In Aksai Chin, China did ingress militarily on clearly disputed land and build roads to 'secure' Tibet, about which it was - and still is - extremely touchy. India should have looked to negotiate and pressed harder for that, but Menon apparently assured Nehru that the Indian Army, manned by his hand-picked stooges at the time, would be able to 'throw out' these interlopers from Aksai Chin, if need be. They were assumed to be border guards and not the PLA. And nobody in India foresaw the speed at which China would 'go to war', if thats the best phrase. Negotiating and playing hardball on such issues is something India has still to come to terms with. NEFA is trickier and the question as to why China covets it strategically leads to open season for all manner of expert opinions. :)

IncMan, Aksai Chin was never really 'in' Indian hands, but that doesnt mean it belonged to China either, LaoWai. The two countries should have thrashed it out on a table, even if it took decades, not slugged it out on those barren stretches. And one of them should'nt have taken it upon themselves to irrevocably change relations between the two nations.

--Tigger69 22:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the glaring mistakes made by Indian politicians, it was clear that the Red Army had been planning to take the disputed territories by force. How else can an army mobilise and strike so fast, even taking the surprise factor into account? It was only a matter of time that the military factor of china would do the job, which the indians naively assumed would not be exercised by PRC.

But, Loi Wei's argument that the agreement on the mac mahon line between tibet and british india is invalid does not hold water. firstly any inheritance, be it the property of an individual or a nation comes with both the credits and the debts. if china sought to merely extend its powers over tibet which it claims is already its territory, then it must also abide to the treaties signed by the territory in its position representing china. if it claims that tibet had done its own individual authority when china had little to no influence on tibet which functioned like an independent nation, it opens a further can of worms. that of the issue of tibet's sovereignty to act in an independent position. if the latter is the case, then there is a solid claim for illegal occupation of the tibetian plateau by PRC. if the former is the case, i.e. tibet was always part of china, then the treaties signed by tibet is also part of the whole gamut of agreements which the chinese authorities have to uphold. obviously, it is a catch 22 situation.

The reason why this area is not that much disputed as say the portion of kashmir with pak is this: the aksai chin is a desolate God forsaken place with a population that is forgettable and without any natural resources. The funny thing was that more lives must have been lost during the war than the actual number of people living in those areas. and personally, I feel that (irrespective of who is right or wrong) this is how low humans will stoop to. We as a species, fight for deserts and barren lands all in the name of "glory" or "territory". 100 years from now the world war III might well be fought for Antarctica!! tx to global warming and the presence of oil in the white continent.

Idleguy 18:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well to start with Idleguy, China does not hold any more of the disputed territory and voluntarily, unilaterally withdrew from what they had taken. Clearly they were not planning to take anything. The Indians gave them lots of warning trouble was brewing on the border issue so the readiness of the PLA is hardly surprising. I don't accept that Tibet and Britain did reach an agreement. The understanding between McMahon and Lochen Shastra depended on the Chinese accepting it which they did not. The deal was clearly void and the British behaved as if it was until 1942 or so. China did not inherit Tibet (at least in the view of all Chinese governments), it owned Tibet. Tibet can no more make legally binding treaties than the City Council of Calcutta can. To admit that Tibet signed a legally binding treaty would suggest Tibetan independence. Aksai Chin is a fairly important piece of territory in a strategic sense (and I think that the largest settlement has a population of about 1,500 people so it is not entirely empty). So it is not as dumb as it looks. But more important is the principle - you let the Indians push you around and unilaterally decide your borders, and allow foreign soldiers on your territory and, well, both India and China knows where that leads.

Tigger69's comments are interesting, but I don't come from this from an Indian view. China hardly betrayed India, much less Nehru's friendship. Nehru was not only sheltering the Dalai Lama (which China might have accepted) but it was actively funding and helping the CIA and Tibetan guerillas. And had been doing so since the mid-50s. Some friendship. No Chinese government has ever accepted the McMahon line so it is not just the PRC. I do not claim that Aksai Chin belongs to China in a legal sense, but they held it before 1962, they hold it now. I don't see India getting them out. Personally I think India tried to bully China and got their fingers burnt. China in 1949 was not like China in 1849 and Nehru misjudged.

However we could argue this all day and this is not the page for it. Are people happy with the last edit I did or is there still a problem? Lao Wai 20:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge regarding the Sino-Indian War is very limited. I always thought that China constructed highways across

NEFA and that Aksai Chin was captured during the 1961 War. Okay, according to this report, China withdrew its troops from 70% of the captured area in the NE but it doesnt say that China withdrew its troops back to positions held before Oct 20. I do agree with Lao that Nehru misjudged China's military abilities and that the war was evitable had Nehru sticked to his words. --{{IncMan|talk}} 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break into the middle here, but I can't keep track otherwise. Not captured area, disputed area. They withdrew from all the captured territory, but not back to the line that India claimed was their border. China withdrew to the lines it held before the fighting - the McMahon line as a matter of fact (India claimed the watershed line, which the McMahon line shoul;d have been, but with one or two minor excpetions - it was when India moved north of the ML to the Thagla Ridge that problems started). I think Nehru could have avoided the war without any trouble at all. China agreed to the McMahon line with Burma - leaving ethnic Chinese enclaves just inside Burma. And China had no problems with Paksitan either. Lao Wai 09:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with Lao's last edit. I also added a line that should also not be a problem since military movement suggests that advancing on so many fronts, they were outstretched and thus decided to end the game while they (PRC) were ahead. moreover the US assistance started to make Chinese authorities jittery and felt it prudent to curtail the war and withdraw unilaterally. also there seems to have been something amiss in the whole story told by PRC. despite the success in aksai chin, the PRC failed to retain control of NEFA which is much more prosperous and populous than aksai chin. both were disputed as the macmahon line demarcated it yet PRC retained control only over the desert. aksai chin is neither strategic nor ecnomically viable to India (it is of slightly higher value to PRC due to the connecting roads) being among the most sparsely populated regions of the world. AP is fertile and since the invasion was anyway in full swing, it seems like a blunder to have settled for aksai chin rather than occupying Arunachal Pradesh. both regions being disputed, and given a golden opportunity, common sense dictates that a nation will opt for both or the more economically viable region. Maybe commies had other measurements like the landsize grabbed was important that the usefullness of such a land. :-)

Also as Lao rightly says, the "City council of calcutta" cannot sign treaties as they had no powers. However, the province of tibet signed a treaty and China seemed powerless for more than half a century to do anything about it. If a lousy city council in any state of india signed such a treaty the whole council would be sacked and arrested for treason. the inability of the chinese government during the era shows lack of control over its own territory in which case the mac mahon issue is not about validity of the treatise but the right of china's rule in tibet (lapse of authority over time). also china uses the word "liberating" tibet which suggests a takeover. furthermore no one knows how valid the chinese occupation of tibet is since democracy is a commodity not available in PRC. Idleguy 07:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the lines of supply argument is that it is speculation. The same with US involvement. We have no way of knowing what was going on in Zhongnanhai and so should not say. It is more likely that the Chinese simply did not want to annex any territory they did not think was Chinese. They have not done so anywhere including much weaker neighbours like Burma. Aksai Chin has a raod which leads from Xinjiang to Tibet. It is important to China and it is also territory the Chinese felt was theirs. There was no treaty giving it to anyone else. I am not sure common sense works when trying to tell what the PRC does. I think ideology is more important and China claimed to respect other countries' territory. Also China has a long long history of trying to achieve peaceful stable borders. Regardless of the ideology on the other side they try to do so. Look at Pakistan. Annexing territory is not a way to do this. Tibet is another whole issue. Lao Wai 09:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/international/asia/26india.html Tigger69 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw it last night. Pretty amazing, although I would like to see the full transcript. Not that it has much influence on this article - it was in early 1963, not late 1962. Lao Wai 10:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. Its quite amazin Nixon came up w/ such remarks against Indira Gandhi. --{{IncMan|talk}} 20:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

compromised on statement

Edited the statement on sino-indian war to reflect a neutral POV. The supply line statement is speculation. India did not mount much of a defense during the 1962 war, mainly because the prime minister of India had gutted the military, so even if China had stretched its supply lines there was no evidence that India could have mounted an attack. Nehru even publicly hinted that he had given up the Northern areas that China had taken, much to the chagrin of the people in those areas. the people who are trumpeting the supply line argument are mainly on the Indian side. More balanced statement currently with clarification in text for the reader.Mano1 06:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OOPs, user 206.69 seems to have beat me to the punch. He/she actually did in essence what i would have done but left out the statements on Nehru.Mano1 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India does have soldiers in sudan by the way as UN Peacekeepers (indian provides the 3rd largest peace keeping force in the world).

Narasimhan

Gallantry and other awards

Should we have all the war, internal ops and other awards section ? Haphar 13:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that article is becoming too long

We should move certain sections of it to other pages.

iafguru 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Ranks (Lt, Captain etc)

My point the Hony Lt and Capt differ in no way from the regular Capt and Lt. Only issue is they are not paid. the Hony Lt and Capts dress exactly the same way as the regular capt and lt and they get exactly the same perks (access to officers mess, saluting etc).

In addition there are ocassional ranks like Honarary Colonels . Some heads of institutions of Vetenary colleages where there is an NCC unit are Hony Colonels. All Nepali Army Chief of Staffs who visit India are given the rank of Honarary General of the Indian Army. In the Air Force, JRD Tata and Singhania are Hony Air Commodores. iafguru 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but Hony Capt and Hony Lt are regular from the perspective of they are not given to civilians or visitors. These are army regulars and in case of war would be on the front. Unlike visiting Generals. NCC is not the Indian Army neither are Vetenary colleges. The Hon Lt and Hon Capt is different from a Lt and a Captain in terms of duties. Also the title makes the difference clear. JRD as well as Singhania are not expected to fight/fly in case of war or even in peacetime. Haphar 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules and regulations governing honorary ranks is the same whether the JCOs or civilians from outside. Most JCOs who got the hony ranks would prefer to be called as Captain or Lt and not 'Hony Capt' etc. The Hony ranks are a 'reward' and not exactly a position of responsibility. A JCO getting a Hony rank keeps doign the same job as he was doing earlier.

That said why dont you put a note below the list of ranks or start a section on Honorary ranks. Perhaps the links for the Hony ranks can go into the Ranks of the Indian Army subpage. iafguru 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is already a nice note on Honorary ranks in the Ranks of the Indian Army page.

The difference is that there are no Hon Lt's and Captains who are civilians-and that Hon Lt's and Captains get paid for the rank unlike the higher titualar ranks. It is not a rank given to civilians they are "JCO only" titles, but given privelages of an officer. If you want to add the "civilain" and Nepali General" titles please do feel free to do so but the major difference is that the Hon Gen/ Commodores are civilians or NOT from the indian army/ air force. Also though the detailed list has all the ranks. Also for Hon Gens and Commodores there is no Pay associated with the Hon rank, wheras it is for Lt and Capt. Incidentally there is another flaw on the "rank" section- It say Rank structure and talks only of officer level ranks. So it anyway needs to be expanded. ( Do not see why only officers feature in ranks). And we should keep the list to "serving" ranks. Which does include the hon Lt's and Capt's but not the honorary Generals.Haphar 16:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do we have any published information (related to the Indian Army) that lists Honorary Captain and Honorary Lt as different ranks from the existing Captain and Lt ranks - if yes, go ahead and add, with a proper reference to the source. If not, then they should go as footnotes. There always are variations to ranks - There will be a Subedar, Risaldar, or a Subedar-Clerk, but all are the same rank. While listing the hierarchy of the rank structure - it is not correct to list all seperately. Captain / Honorary Captain (for JCOs only) is acceptable. But adding them seperately gives the impression that they are seperate ranks - they are not. iafguru 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have published information that lists Hon Captain and Honorary Lt as the same ranks as Captain and Lieutenant? Subedar is Subedar and Subedar-Clerk is a post not a rank. Risaldar is the "title" given to a Subedar in the Armoured, it is not a rank. The role is the same. However an Hon Capt and Lt the role / qualification/ training /selection- nothing is same as a Captain and a Lieutenant. ( Whereas it is for Subedar and Risaldar). Haphar 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well do the Army ranks and insignia of India pages have a "Hony Captain" badges of rank? Who said risaldar is a title. Subedars are known as Risaldars in Armd regts. You dont go to a Risaldar and call him a subedar. Another edit that needs to be done are that CQMH, CHM are not ranks - they are appointments. iafguru 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. It should be "external sources" else I can show that Honorary Captain as a wiki entry redirects to JCO's- and hence proves that the rank is different from that of a Captain. Please do look it up, it will show you that they is a "seperate " ranks from Captain and Lieutenant and are considered JCO level ranks and not officer level.Haphar 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia badges were provided by http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=145&sid=832 . Why havent these guys at http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Ranks.html not listed Hon Capt and Hon Lt as seperate ranks. Do we also start listing [|Hon Subedar Major, Hon Subedar, Hon Nb Subedar] to the current listings?

First the Indian Army website is more reliable than Bharat Rakshak. Insignia is different from rank. An Hon captain wears the same insignia, but the rank is different and that is why they have a seperate title for it. And if you now have the source showing the rank, please do put all the ranks in- It can be Under a subheading of Honorary ranks, like we have for JCO and NCO..Haphar 17:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshall

The statement that a field MArshall is made only in the times of a national emergency is wrong. Cariappa was made a field marshall in 1983. Even Maneckshaw was made after his retirement. Haphar 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - he was made field marshal 15 days before he quit as COAS. but thats not the point. Field marshals are not supposed to retire but they are on active list till they die. jaiiaf 15:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was mentioning is that a statement in the article mentioned "Field Marshals are made only in the times of national emergency". Neither was made a Field Marshall at the time of a national emergency and hence the statement is wrong. I have since removed the statement. Yes it's a rank for life and they do not "retire" from the rank till alive. Haphar 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was alluding to the "Even Maneckshaw was made after his retirement. " part. but good that you removed the statement of emergencies - that doesnot apply as well

British-Indian Army -AN OR word??

Since Original Research is not allowed in wikipedia, this word British-Indian Army should be changed and also the the wiki article of the same name.-Bharatveer 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few tips to improve artice

Shorten the history section. Move the related material to History of the Indian Army.
References!! The article is not well citied.

--Incman|वार्ता 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Should the Army's sporting forays be included. Every time in the national games or other games like Hockey etc. the Army sends its team/contingent. Even Athens Silver medallist Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was from the Army. I was wondering if that angle could be added? Idleguy 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) hgvjbk,mk There are many such things that surely need to be added like the All women Everest mountaineering team etc like the ones added in the Indian Navy section. Chanakyathegreat 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Heroes

I suggest to remove this section entirely because of its POV title. That these people are war heroes should become apparent from their biographies, not because they are listed in this section. The mention of the words war hero is just as superfluous as the adjective evil is for Hitler. Er rab ee 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned this section up a little bit. I've changed the header to Recipients of the Param Vir Chakra, which is far more neutral and verifiable. I've removed those soldiers that haven't received this decoration; a listing of war heroes would be original research, as there are no clear guidelines as to who can be called a war hero and who cannot. Er rab ee 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the change in name, one can add the other medal categories too, ie MVC and VC. Haphar 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procurement

The procurement section of the document seems to be copied verbatim from a report by IDC. The language is inappropriate for a wikipedia article and contains POV remarks such as the following:

Yet the needs of the Artillery were neglected in favour of the Armoured units
These guns saved the day in the Kargil War
the gun has proved itself to be world class beyond doubt
IDC wonders why these were not co-manufactured especially
IDC learned that the first lot have done well and although they were second hand but well reconditioned
The Indian Navy is truly excited about this missile and calls it the Russian Tomahawk

The following story should also be deleted or at least heavily edited: "The converted and refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov free but with a refit priced at $500 million, which will host a N-010 active phased array fire control and surveillance radar, a 13’ ski ramp and arrestor aircraft recovery system. The decision is far gone and chances of back tracking seem remote but Indian Defence has seen many dramas and media hypes it up. IDC adds: when a senior Air Force officer asked why the nation needs a carrier a young Naval officer said, “Sir you know where Hindon is.” He said of course. He politely asked, “Sir can it move.” and the senior IAF officer said, “don’t be stupid.” Then the junior officer asked, “Sir, do you know where INS Viraat is, and where it will be tomorrow.” The senior officer was furious so the junior said “ Sir, we need the carrier because it is the only airfield that can move and support the Navy,” and that in simple terms is the short answer."

11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Roy

Army Warrant Officers

I read somewhere that the APS (Army Postal Service) employs assistants in the initial rank of Warrant Officer. Is this rank specific to the APS or is there a wider use in the Indian Army. And in terms of hierarchy, is this rank between Havildar and Naib Subedar? --LONDON 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is there a need to put current GOC names ??

can anyone tell me , wats the need of adding the names of the GOC ?? i mean why we indians are so obsessed for seeing our names ! i think as indian army is an entity that comes under the parliament and hence all generals are the servants of the government of india ! so there is no valid point on putting there names , also the posts are dynamic nt static ! only the war heroes names should be posted irrespective of their ranks or the officers who have shown extra courage and bravery in peace shuld be mentioned . its totaly rediculous to put the names of GOC . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.184.143 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC). --68.83.184.143 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

can someone do anything about the vandalism on this page?? I tried, but couldn't. Cheers. Sniperz11 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working/Official Language

Can somebody who knows please add to the article (or just answer here). What is the common working language of the Indian Army? Is official army communication, rank names, unit names, etc, in Hindi or English? Jason75 18:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant site source but common working language(when it comes to paper work)is english. Orders, when verbally given are mostly given in hindi-english mix. While sending signals/telegrams or road signs/marking roman script is primarily used but the signs may include devnagri too. however I havent seen an exclusive use of devnagri as a script. In some cases the name plates on troops uniform can include both roman and devnagri script. even the motto of a regt. or corp. is most likely to be in hindi but transliterated to roman. You must have noticed that medals given have mixed bits e.g. SM, sena medal, UYSM uttam yudh seva medal,etc. In Medals though you might see exclusive use of devnagri. HTH, Armybrat 05:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Haneefuddin

There is a vandal who has been repeatedly removing Captain Haneefuddin from the list of PVC winners. Please keep an eye. CHeers. Sniperz11 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a)it's not PVC winners it's PVC recipient. b)Capt. haneef-uddin recieved a veer chakra,Please don't add that name back again. Armybrat 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why table for only Missiles?

there are missiles of different missions from an ATGM to a ballistic missile. when everything from rifles to tanks are mentioned in seperate categories and why are all missiles mentioned in a single table? I am classifying them according to their missions or type.

Tunguska can be classified as SAM System and also as Air defence artillery. because it has both guns n sams. So its better if we have airdefence systems in a seperate section.

Thank you for your contributions. I would suggest you take is slowly, and make incremental changes to the article. allowing time for other editors to check your additions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have reverted it back to original page. All i have done is removing the table for missiles, because why table for IGMDP especially when we have already an article on IGMDP.

Template:Indian Army Arms and Services

[[Category:Indian navigational boxes|{{PAGENAME}}]]

I have created this template when i found many Armies have description of their Arms & Services while IA Doesn't. Do I need to make any changes. Its becoming very hard to find info about Indian Armoured Corps except the list of Armored Regiments involved. But nothing much is availaible about Armoured Corps, They have played very important role in wars like 1965 but infomration is there. Infantry Regiments are far popular by the heroism they displayed in almost every war, So a lot of info availaible abt them, but does anyone have with Armoured Corps and their units Ajay ijn 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks

Source:[3]

Active Main Battle Tanks - 62 Armoured Regiments • T-90S: 5 regiments @ 62 tanks each, (310) plus a further 1330 tanks being locally assembled (not completed). • T-72M1: 35 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (1950) upgrade program in progress - moving very slowly. • T-55: 10 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (550) with L7/105mm gun + the Vijayanta standard upgrade. • Vijayanta: 11 regiments @ 72 tanks each, (800+) upgraded with FCS and night fighting equipment.

The above list excludes the one Arjun Mk.1 armoured regiment.

Reserve/Store MBTs • T-55: 200 - To be phased out by 2008 • Vijayanta: 1000 - To be phased out by 2008

310+1950+550+800+200+1000=4810 4810+5+12 Arjuns=4827~4830

Anything missing? Chanakyathegreat 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army equipment [4] Chanakyathegreat 13:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-90 Bhishma [5] In February 2001, the Indian Army signed a contract for 310 T-90S tanks. 124 were completed in Russia and the rest are being delivered in 'knocked down / semi-knocked down' form for final assembly in India. The first of these was delivered in January 2004.

So 124 in Russia + 186 in India= First order for 310 tanks.

Jan 08, 2004 report [6]

By April 2004- 80 tanks. By April 2005- 100 tanks~106 tanks. The order for 310 tanks complete. By April 2006-??? From April 2006-April 07 100/year production.

So the current strength is 410+ T-90's in service. Chanakyathegreat 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7]In July 2006, Defence News reported that the Ordnance Factory Board was awarded a US $2.5 billion deal to produce 1000 T-90S tanks for the Indian Army. The order is being carried out in phases, with the production of the first 300 examples having already begun in June 2006.

HVF has already handed over the first batch of 181 of these 300 ordered.[8] Chanakyathegreat 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More T-90's. 347 T-90's.[9] 120 in one year. As per the agreement, the remaining 227 tanks will be delivered within two years in semi knocked-down condition. Chanakyathegreat 13:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun

Report Apr 26, 2005 [10]

The HVF would deliver 15 tanks before the end of this year. Its aim is to deliver 124 tanks by 2007-08

[11]Report On Oct. 13th 2006 The first 15 tanks of the 124 have already been activated. Of the remaining 109 tanks, the Indian Army is currently putting the first five tanks from the production lines at Avadi, through accelerated build quality and reliability trials. The intent is to verify whether the Arjun production has stabilized, with the requisite quality and performance requirements. Upon successful completion, the remaining 104 tanks will be manufactured in batches. The planned production rate is currently pegged at thirty tanks per year, with the Army requesting fifty per year as the ideal. The Indian Minister of Defence reported that the Arjun was slated for full scale production soon. He also stated that five tanks had already delivered to the Indian Army and 23 were ready for delivery.

October 2006 15+5 Arjun tanks=20 tanks +23 tanks ready for delivery. October 2007 20+23+30 tanks/year=73 Arjun tanks October 2008 73+51 (50/year Army request)=124 tanks 50+/year onwards. Chanakyathegreat 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By October 2007 20+23+15 tanks=58 Arjun tanks Chanakyathegreat 16:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Security Corps

Where does the Defence Security Corps fit in to this article? Shijaz 14:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Insas56.jpg

Image:Insas56.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter requirements

At the moment it reads "The Indian army has projected a requirement for a helicopter that can carry loads of up to 75 kg" surely this must be wrong.KTo288 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blindfolded

this article clearly leans too much towards the indian side the forced accession of hyderabad is named as liberation of hyderabad and the fact that the issue was already under un scrutiny is totaly ignored pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese rewrite or delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.54.63 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Colonels

The rank of Lt. Col. has in no way shape or form been removed from the military heirarchy of India. Such disinformation is quite undesirable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspuar (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo under the section "The Kargil Operation in 1999"

There appears to be a typo under the section "The Kargil Operation in 1999". it reads, "Heavy damage was inflicted on Indian army, particularly its Northern light infantry". The Northern Light Infantry actually belongs to Pakistan Army. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.93.1 (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

active troops number

the article says that the Indian Army has the third largest number of active troops in the world, but the list that is linked to from that statement says the Indian Army has the most active troops. I'm going to assume that the list is correct and change the article. If this is wrong, please revert.--Alhutch 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to the list because the list talks about the total number of armed forces in a country and just the army. The Indian Army is the 3rd largest but the Indian Armed Forces which also includes the Indian Paramilitary is the world's largest. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong. The Indian Army is the second largest army after the Chinese PLA. [12] Chanakyathegreat 15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian army is the second largest army in asia and the third largest in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.217.107 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second largest army in the world and third largest armed forces in the world.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg

The image Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Pattonb.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited

I have edited this article today, mainly changing grammatical mistakes and reframing sentences. I have not changed any factual data here.

Triviabot (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

op pawan

no mention of IPKF and op-pawan ? can we cite sources from bharat rakshak and indian army's website?

There is an article on the Indian Peace Keeping Force but it is heavily infested by LTTE Sympathisers. Needs work jaiiaf 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think citing recources from the indian army website isnt fair after all its bound to be atleast a little biased like if one were to cite resources from the iranian army website we would be lead to believe that its stronger than the united states armed forces lol so no recources from there --Pak Genius 08:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you have heard this before but this article is too biased

for example there is a section entitled liberation of hyderabad i would advise u look up this topic in some oxford published reliable book i mean man give me a break who would call the invasion of a sovereighn state by another countrys army liberation the formal complaint that hyderabad had launched to the UN was still to heard when indian troops stormed the state and dismantled the state machinery if the indian government was so good it should have waited for the un decision —Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniGenius (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Perhaps if you used sentences to communicate, people would understand what the heck you're babbling about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.50.141 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The liberation of Hyderabad couldnt have been carried out had the people of Hyderabad not supported the Indian Cause. They were fed up of the Nizam's autocratic Rule. You should learn more about the movements started by the Hyderabadi people to get more representation in the state affairs which was flatly refused by the Nizam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.99.53 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong rank. Please correct.

Under the heading Recepients of the Param Veer Chakra, Major Shaitan Singh is wrongly mentioned as Havaldar Shaitan Singh.

Major Shaitan Singh was the CO of C Company, 13 Kumaon Regiment which fought the Chinese army at Rezangla.

Thanks,

Ajit S. Datar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.53.114 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Division Hierarchy

Now that each corps has its own article,I suggest that the divisional information of Corps be moved to the respective Corps page so that the article clutter reduces. --Vinay84 (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Please note that the Official Indian Army Site has grave errors. It was Skandagupta not Chandragupta Maurya who was much earlier who defeated the Huns. Also A portrait of Maharaja Gulab singh has been referred to as Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

SEE: http://indianarmy.nic.in/Index.aspx?flag=LfcULYFlbeQ= Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi transliteration.

Why do we have the Hindi transliteration in this article? What is its significance? Sarvagnya 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hindi translation. It is sanskrit in devanagari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsoddy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing brigades

I created today the military OrBat graphic of the Indian Army: commons:File:Indian Army Structure.png. The problem is that some of the independent brigades mentioned in the article are listed in the Indian Army#Corps section. In all 10 Artillery, 5 Infantry and 1 Parachute brigades and the 2 Independent Air-defence Groups are unaccounted for. On the other hand there are 2 Armoured Brigades to many in the Corps section listed. Can anyone clarify/check/help with this problem. Thanks in advance, --noclador (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man power of Indian Army

OK, I have updated the man-power of the Indian army using an existing source, but it seams editors on this article have in the past abused W-RS and edited their own fake figures. Lets hope that stops. Recon.Army (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Division raising dates

Before the post 1962 expansion, both India and Pakistan avoided common numbers: India took 1, 4, 5, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, and 27 Divisions; Pakistan took 6 (later disbanded), 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. After the 1962 War India went ahead to backfill numbers: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 36, 39, 54, 57. Pakistan responded with 6 and 11. After the 1965 War they added 16, 18 and 23. Then in 1971 they added 17 and 33, and as deception formations they raised 36 and 39.

After 1971 India added 16, 18, 31; Pakistan reraised 9, 14, 16 lost in East Pakistan, and added 19. Between 1976 and 1984 India went on to add 21, 22, 28, and 29, Pakistan added 40 and 41. By 2000 Pakistan added 2 (artillery division), India added 40 and 41 Arty Divs.

Pakistan is now supposed to have 25 and 26 Mech Divs, they are actually armd divs and have different numbers. No one I know has been able to figure out why in peacetime they would use deception numbers. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its Thalasena not Sthalasena.

In the Devanagari script it is written as Sthalasena with the same spelling in roman. Actually, in Devanagari, the S is neither there nor it is pronounced that way. Thala means land or earth in Sanskrit and Sena means force. I dont know how to change Devanagari Script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.4.24 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The spelling is Thalsena and NOT Sthalsena. And the same goes for devanagri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.237.34 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Error

Under the head of the Siachen Conflict (1984) there is this particular line: " In 2004, Indian Army was spending an estimated US$2 million a day to support its personnel stationed in the region."

    This is a minor piece of wrong information provided. I checked the link provided along with it [citation no. 32] It is the original article which states that the figure is clearly for a month. I suggest it be edited as soon as possible.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.213.30 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Akravindran, 15 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The picture with the title 'Indian Army soldiers arrive in Korea in September 1953 for peacekeeping along the neutral buffer zone' is not a photograph of soldiers at all. It is a photograph of toy/model soldiers. Please remove this.

Akravindran (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You'll need some evidence that this image is fake besides you just think it does. -Atmoz (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

creation of a special forces section

there needs to be a special forces section in the article about Indian Army special forces the Para Commandos and the Ghatak Force --Honorprevails123 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of T-90s in Thar desert is rotated left.

"Indian Army T-90 tanks take part during an exercise in the Thar Desert" This image file when seen on Flickr is perfect but in wiki page its rotated left.I couldn't find how this happened but opening this picture full screen its orientation is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivsn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logistical problems yesterday, Logistical problems tomorrow, but never Logistical problems today

How come Logistical problems are well noted in just about every operation in the history section, but the problems they have today, such as eating expired food http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Indian_army_eating_out-of-date_food_999.html , are skipped over? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Id say go ahead and include it in the article. — Woe90i^Woe90i 13:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army statistics

Under the Indian Army Staff and Strength section, there is mention that the Indian Army has 1500+ aircraft. This is obviously a mistake, could somebody please add the appropriate number ?

Thank you.

Removed any unsourced material from that table. Cheers. Talk^Woe90i 09:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

62 ICBMs

What's this stuff with Indian Army having 62 ICBMs? Our longest range missile Agni-V is not even operational yet right? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

I had sourced and added the numbers of troops a bit earlier, but it was reverted. Why? I have at least two sources confirming that. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess the edit comment in this diff will be self explanatory. The ref u added, i am guessing, talked about the indian military, which is not just the army, but also included the air force, and the navy, hence is a larger figure. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it. Thanks for telling. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

There is an uneasy imposition of political views into what should be a factual account. For instance the statement that: "1.3 million Indian soldiers served in World War I (1914–1918) for the Allies, after the United Kingdom made vague promises of self-governance to the Indian National Congress in return for its support. Britain reneged on its promises after the war, following which the Indian Independence movement gained strength". Indian nationalist sentiment should not influence statements of fact.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change

The picture of a Sikh soldier removing Nazi flag,May I ask are Sikhs a separate people from Indians?And are only Hindus Indians?Sikh is a religion,so the Sikh soldier this term is not right,I change it to Indian Sikh soldier.Ovsek (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=93711 http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/with-malice-toward-goodwill/article5176540.ece http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/j-k-ministers-paid-money-to-win-hearts-vk-singh/article1-1126474.aspx. 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. Gsingh (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits by TBZ

@TalhaZubairButt: the section is about Indian Army operations against Nizam's forces in Hyderabad not about the reports of committees that states events happened in the aftermath of Operation Polo. While I told you not to give WP:UNDUE weight there and refer to Communal violence during and after the operation section of the main article, while instead of going through my edit summaries, you kept on doing blatant reverts? this is the thing to be written in the Operation Polo (already there), You don't understand? You also violated WP:3RR (can be seen here: First, Second and THIRD). Thus, I suggest you to do a self-revert and discuss the issue here. And, please make yourself familiar with WP:BRD and how this is done. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning Communal violence committed by both Razkars and Indian soldiers has been included and thus the information in the section has been balanced out. The violence was an integral part of the conflict and is relevant here.

This information was restored by @FreeatlastChitchat who is of the opinion that this information is highly relevant here.

Also if we look at the pages of other armies, including the Pakistan Army page, atrocities committed by them have also been included. So there is no need to make an exemption for this page.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on what basis you are comparing Indian Army & Pakistan Army articles, and genocide of Bengalis and to this case. Your allegations are based on an single community report, that has it's claims and counter-claims well mentioned in the separate section Communal violence during and after the operation of the main article, so stop giving WP:UNDUE weight to a small section that is only meant to give a brief detail on Indian Army operations against the Nizam's paramilitary forces! If you wanted to add anything else, please do add their in the main article, not here! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlaze Lightning: The mass killings and rape of Muslims of Hyderabad are an integral and deserving part of this sectionn and this section is supposed to be a summary of the main page. So yes a few sentences about the atrocities committed against Muslims by the Indian Army can be included because it is one of the major standout points of the Operation Polo. And I have not included higher estimates of Muslims killed, I have only included the conservative estimate from the Indian committee report. Furthermore razakar atrocities on Hindus have also been incorporated to balance the information. Furthermore, @FreeatlastChitchat (a neutral admmin) believes that the information is relevant.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TalhaZubairButt A suggestion for you, do a self-revert and gain consensus here. please do not undo other editors when you've been reverted. You need to gain consensus for your edit before making changes in the article! And, nop. Your allegations are based on Sunderlal Committee Report which has been disowned by many leaders and Indian scholars including the Patel. Refer to the main article. And, there's no need to add Razakars atrocities, as it is not relevant here. Please go through my last reply thoroughly as I don't see any reason of doing copy/paste my comment again! And Lol, when did FLCC became admin, let alone neutral? He is a random editor from pakistan just like you! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These links seem useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All links seem useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131212084347/http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645 to http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645
http://web.archive.org/web/20041206180157/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150928032748/http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links #2-3 seem useful; #1 failed (error 302, then 404). Dhtwiki (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928055430/https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm to https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link seems useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture has wrong year on caption

"An Indian Army officer with a local at the UN mission in Congo, 2000" The picture shows a lenovo branded thinkpad. Lenovo didn't acquire IBM assets until 2004. This picture is much more recent than the caption suggests -- anonyperson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.226.5 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian Army. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All links seem useful. #1 leads to a Windows '97 Word document. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Thalsena

There has been a little hoo-ha over the complete non-issue of there being Indic script in the infobox. I'd say that this hoo-ha has been created by Indians ashamed of being Indian, but that'd be me violating Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith (snicker). All jokes aside, the native name parameter in the infobox exists for a reason. Until you can find a legitimate reason to prohibit Indic script from the infobox other than 'waaah, I don't like it' (which is not a legitimate reason to revert anything), then it shall remain. And no, WP's Indic script policy does not count here. You could delve into the semantics of it by arguing that the infobox counts as a part of the 'lead', but I could again counter by saying that the native name parameter exists to be used. Either way, it is a non-issue. Take a look at People's Liberation Army and Russian Ground Forces before mindlessly reverting. Tiger7253 (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about what you think you know about other Indians being "ashamed of being Indian", but a consensus has been reached and it will be followed, whether you like it or not. Though, if you can enlighten me on how WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply here, I'm all ears. People's Liberation Army and Russian Ground Forces don't count because they do not come under the jurisdiction of WP:India. - Nirinsanity (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirinsanity: My quip was perfectly relevant. We have a lot of people on Wikipedia making edits on the basis of their emotions or grievances. "Waaah, I just DON'T like it!" isn't a legitimate reason to revert something perfectly acceptable. The consensus doesn't apply to country or place articles (It's hilarious how you think 'Bharat Ganarajya' counts as Indic script, did the Roman script become Indic now)? If you think Bharat Ganarajya shouldn't be in India, why don't you apply that same standard to Chennai or Mumbai? They both have *literal* Indic script in their infoboxes. Since you claim this supposedly violates policy, why don't you follow your own advice and remove it? I'm waiting.

The reason why it was allowed to be left there in the first place was because it doesn't violate the consensus, or else the editors would've removed it a long time ago. You're simply being a vandal. Tiger7253 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Army. 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/20120509001243/http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html to http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Army. 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/20151002011703/http://www.army.mil/media/295176 to http://www.army.mil/media/295176

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to the controversy section

Hi CorrectionLab 3000 Please discuss here what you would like to add here. Currently, in my view what you are editing is not mentioned in the sourced provided. It is synthesis and WP:OR on your part. Please discuss your edits here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed further because these things have been mentioned to death on other articles like Kashmir conflict. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the argument for removing the section all good. United States Army doesn't put any controversies for instance, though a lot could be there. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, I support the removal of this section for several reasons: main reason is the "Due Balanace". Indian Army is a large organisation with history of 250+ years, with multiple operations, etc. There might be isolated incidences limited to the specific cases. Those are best covered within the articles related to the individual operations. Many of these articles are already pipelinked. Add it if any army is acting like a deep state or rogue state running parallel regime within a democratic state, which Indian Army is not. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument that "such and such" article do not have this, so this article must not have it either, is against wikipedia policies. This information is related to the Indian Army, so it should be added here. Any other issues such as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR must be removed before adding the text. Elektricity (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the United States Army article is neither a GA nor FA, so it's not a gold standard. Considering Russian Ground Forces has a Crime and corruption in the ground forces section, this article can have one too. - 39.48.28.20 (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pakistani claims be added to the 1965 war section? Can Indian users digest balance on both Pakistan and Indian army articles?

I just wanted to gauge whether users would approve of Pakistani claims on destroying 500 Indian tanks during 1965 war be added on this article? Considering Adamberger80 believes this rule should apply to Pakistan Army page which contains Indian claims of 471 tanks being destroyed should there not be balance? We should also have Pakistani claims plus neutral claims of Pakistani losses why is this so hard to swallow? Hranday8 (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained the logic to you that you cannot compared these two pages. Also, 1965 is a small part of the Indian Army history so you have to give it weight age accordingly. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can compare them as they are both related to that war your excuses hold no water. No double standards should be allowed either add Pakistani sources and claims here or remove Indian sources from the Pakistani page simple. Hranday8 (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been resolved with neutral claims on both pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Army. 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/20131203031350/http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=11769 to http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=11769

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Samman Guard

Poorly source and not enough to have it's own article. Better off in the main page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge It's better to merge in main article. ML^talk 19:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Merge here. Samman Guard is an article with one paragraph, one reference, and a link to a YouTube video (which, I suppose, shows the march being played). BTW, I don't see anything official establishing this as the Indian army's official slow march (my attempt to link to indianarmy.nic.in generates an insecure connection error), so it might be well to have that fact established. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki: You raise a good point and this itself needs to be verified. On the Security Exception issue, just add the exception to your browser. I believe the security certificate of the IA website has expired and they have not renewed it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Merge here, per above--DBig Xray 13:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No brainer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Martial music of the Indian Army needs to be created and Samman guard merged there. This stray fact has no place in the generic Indian Army article. AshLin (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

This edit request to Indian Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page could be improved: there are a number of citation omissions that have not been updated. Furthermore the research has not been done for many years now on this page as on so many others. I don't mind doing it myself, but in my experience there are jealousy rules amongst Wikipedians who like to hoard page achiever statistics for themselves, when they should be caring more about the Quality of the webpage. So many pages also display semi-permanent or permanent dead links. I could do this; but again the problem seems to be that there is a 'bunfight' to seize ownership of a page. In particular the table on this page headed Combat Corps needs to be completed so that the Indian Army can be proud of its page at last! 46.208.150.110 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over how to label Corps of EME

I've seen it, in just these recent edits, given as "Corps of Electronics, Mechanical & Electrical [Engineers]" and "Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers". We need to settle this somehow. I think I've seen it both ways, depending on whether you're consulting a Wikipedia article or one of the Indian army's own websites (where they might have it both ways). However, we should develop a consensus for what's best, based on what is most representative of sources. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new Page for the Indian Army History

I think you guys should move the History of the Indian Army since 1947 to a new page. This article is quite long as it is.

I looked at the Israeli Defense Forces article and then decided to move the History of the Pakistan Army to a new page.

Just a suggestion

)

User:Mercenary2k 22:47, 13 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

I agree```` 123.201.100.253 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

1965 Indo-Pak War DestroyedShermanTank.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute Rgmt

The link to the Parachute Regiment in this page seems to link to the British Army Paracute Rgmt.? Also, the links to Guard, Grenadier Rgmts link to disambiguations that don't even mention the Indian Infantry Rgmts of the same name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.161.62 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a New Article in Equipment of Indian Army

I am copy pasting all the contents in the section "Equipment" to a new article. Later we can remove the content from IA article completely depend on what everyone will decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay ijn (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

III Corps

The information about the sub-units of the III Corps needs to be verified. In

See this edit by a non-confirmed editor awaiting approval. I think the location spelling change is correct but don't want to edit the article until the issue of the 56th division status as an Infantry division or Mountain division is verified in a reliable source.

Whatever is verified as correct, please check III Corps (India) to make sure it is correct as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new page for weapon systems & Equipment?

IAF & IN have a dedicated page for weapon systems but its not with IA. It Should be created as the information is lengthy. And Structure of Indian Army can also be in a new page what do you guyz say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay ijn (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thank you for choosing talk page to have a talk. We do have page for List of equipment of the Indian Army which has all list of equipment of Indian Army. Though that page needs more effort to make it better. If you could help, you are always welcome. Cheers Brown Chocolate (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes template

This article has been under WP:Pending changes protection since April 2019. Typically, the {{pp-pc1}} template is applied to the page at the time the protection is applied. This was not done. I've done it now.

If there is a good reason NOT to have this template on the page, fee free to remove it but if you do, put a note here saying what that reason is. A good reason might be "per a previous discussion at [provide a link to the discussion here]" or "per established practice on similar articles, see [provide evidence here]." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents bodyguard

This had to be added. How can you forget this regiment??? One more thing, can someone help me with the picture? Its too big. 129.127.32.138 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The President's Bodyguard isn't listed in the text, and information on its place as part of the army might be added. I've adjusted the picture size to conform with others, apparently merely by making "thumb" lower case. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Aposea-2020-014-1-rifles-and-the-indian-army-rk-211.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Aposea-2020-014-1-rifles-and-the-indian-army-rk-211.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

This edit request to Indian Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit 1: Please expand the list in the "services" section to the one based on the more detailed and sourced list in Women in Indian Armed Forces#Summary table of commission by corps. I have just created that table.

Edit 2: Please pipe Indian Army Dental Corps to the article/draft (click on the redlink). I have just created that article draft.

Feel free to review/enhance. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1: Not done Please be specfic about what you want changed (ie. "X to Y"). Note: I don't think a List of all the Corps in the Indian Military would fit here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 2: Not done We do not put in links of that direct to drafts in Encylopedia Articles. We only link articles to articles. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

ADGPI Indian Army.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Armed forces flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native regiment photo

thumb|Thiyyar Soldiers of The Thiyyar Regiment in The British Indian Army

Can you addd this photo in history section ?

This is from Thiyyar Regiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.169.10 (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

This edit request to Indian Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hindi is not the national language of India. Just keep the motto in English. 122.164.134.51 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done like your request at Talk:Indian Air Force. Copied from India: "According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language." Hindi is the/a national language of India - please respect this. --Ferien (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

ADGPI Indian Army.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India has 1.444m active personnel and 2.1m reserve

Hdhd A39wastaken (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

This edit request to Indian Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You hadn't added the Nathu La and Cho La clashes (commonly known as Sino-Indian war of 1967). Can you please let me add that? Kumar Nandish438 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aadkinson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Surrender of Portuguese forces in Goa to Indian Army.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hakenkreuz (Hooked Cross) replaced with Swastika

Noticed that there is lack of understanding regarding Hakenkreuz and Swastika being totally different symbols with totally different meaning. Request members to watch video of discussion in the Canadian Parliament to understand the difference between "Swastika" and "Hakenkreuz" and make sure that we call "Hakenkreuz" by its name rather than try to call it by another name. Rollingtanker (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "swastika" to "Nazi flag" in the caption of an image showing such a flag captured by Indian troops. Does that address your concern with regard to the article? Hakenkreuz ("hooked cross") would refer just to the symbol that is commonly known as a "swastika", and "hakenkreuz flag" would indicate the banner being held up. I would argue that "swastika" is the more common term but also realize the sensitivity at conflating the two on a page dealing with the Indian army. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi flag will do. Also would like to point out that Common term never means it's the correct term. Due to the misinterpretation, of calling hakenkreuz as Swastika (Auspicious symbol for Hindus, Buddhist's, Sikh's and Jain's) there are lot of hate crimes the Indian community has to face. I appreciate you for taking a middle ground and hope one day you will have the courage to call it what it is (Hakenkreuz).Rollingtanker (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian army officer

Indian army officer 202.168.85.144 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

This edit request to Indian Army has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Formatting correction. In the Other ranks subsection of Rank structure, correct the first colspan from 10 to 22, second colspan from 12 to 6, and third colspan from 14 to 8. It is to conform to the correct order Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/India. 117.230.87.26 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done – I've also retitled two of the columns, in accordance with the template. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army Rank Romanization

Um, I can't do this, but I think there should be a romanization of the Indian Army ranks. Preferably beneath the Indian writing. Faithful15 (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Indian Army Arms and Services
Combat and Support Arms	Infantry Regiments · Armoured Corps · Mechanised Infantry Regiment · Regiment of Artillery · Army Aviation Corps · Corps of Army Air Defence · Corps of Engineers · Corps of Signals · Intelligence Corps
Combat Services	Dental Corps · Education Corps · Medical Corps · Ordnance Corps · Postal Service Corps · Service Corps · Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineers · Corps of Military Police · Judge Advocate General's Deptt · Military Farms Service · Military Nursing Service · Remount and Veterinary Corps · Pioneer Corps · Defence Security Corps