Talk:British Indian Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Indian Army article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 British military history task force
Indian military history task force
World War I task force
World War II task force

Contents

[edit] Page Name

Hello .. I can see it might be useful to disambiguate between the Indian Army (pre-1947) and the later Army, But it very offensive to describe the pre-1947 Army as the 'British' Indian Army. Many people (for example, Wallace Breem!) joined the Indian Army in preference to joining the British Army because of that very distinction.

May I suggest a title such as: 'Indian Army (pre-1947)' or 'Indian Army (19xx-1947)'? mfc 19:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I considered calling it Indian Army (British) but because so many pages on the internet already exist (google "British Indian Army" returns 2,810) it seems like a sane name. After all there is already an article called "British Raj" which has a redirect from "British India". And all the pages in Categories: Military ranks which mention the British Indian Army eg Naik used the words before I made the change from British Indian Army to British Indian Army.
I am not hard set on the name, but I am set on a seperation. I think it is a better name than your suggestions for anyone who is not a military buff. As more than 50 years have gone by, I think the Indians are entitled to the page for their modern army without lots of historic bagage. With the new page name the Pre 1947 page can be expanded. So much to do... Philip Baird Shearer 01:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the separation .. excellent work. It's just that all the historical references refer to the 'Indian Army'. Wallace Breem for example, was proud that he joined the Indian Army and not the British Army; the difference was (and, I suppose, still is) important – because of its independence. It really wasn't British; hence my mutterings about the name you have chosen.

Now I look at your Google list ... most (all?) of those seem to refer to the British army in India ... which is separate from the Indian Army at the time, and the latter's school for officers, for example. In short, and generalizing: the Indian Army had units composed of Indians, the British Indian Army had units composed of British. These are very different. mfc

That's incorrect. Pre-1895 "Indian Army" meant the "army of the government of India" and included British and Indian (sepoy) units. From 1895 to 1902 "Indian Army" was a collective term for the armies of the presidencies; the Bengal Army, Madras Army and Bombay Army. Post-1902, following Kitchener's reforms, "Indian Army" was, to quote the Oxford History of the British Army, "the force recruited locally and permanently based in India, together with its expatriate British officers." and was separate from the British Army in India (the two together made the "Army of India").
Yes, I over-simplified—the officers of the Indian army were British (Wallace Breem, of course, being an example of that). But the men were 'locals', which is the important distinction. mfc
The thing is, the Indian Army described by this article was a British institution, hence British Indian Army to distinguish from the post-independence Indian Indian Army. There would be units of the British Indian Army that came from what is now Pakistan, Nepal and, probably, Bangladesh. My only alternative for a name would be Indian Army of the British Empire. Geoff/Gsl 05:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since this is all historical information, why not call it "History of the Indian Army". Then you can subdivide it as appropriate by period. You could also include a smaller history section (maybe only a paragraph) on the modern "Indian Army" article with a reference to the larger "History of the Indian Army" article. — Mike 04:13, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Geoff would I be correct in saying that a Regiment of the British Army in India would be a British Army Regiment on a posting to India. They could be posted from there to Sudan, or South Africa (etc) or back to Blighty?

That's correct. British Army regiments in India didn't have permanent postings but usually stayed longer than the term of service for the soldiers. Up until 1861 there were also separate British East India Company units (predominantly European troops) but they disbanded or transfered to the British Army following the mutiny. Geoff/Gsl

I think that "History of the Indian Army" is not a good idea as it confuses 2 different institutions, which is why I made the break in the first place.

As to the other comments please have a look at Gurkha which includes references to the British East India Company army, The British Indian Army, The Indian Army and the British Army. I think the distinction between the four works better than the other options proposed.

One final point. If a none American see a reference to an article called the "Civil War", most would not be surprised if it turned out to be about the "American Civil war" because they know that this is what American, from none southern states, tend to use as a short hand name. If an English person puts together a "List of Civil War Generals" most Americans would be surprised to see Prince Rupert and Cromwell in the list, so the list would normally be qualified with "List of English Civil War Generals" Just as a none American will correct "List of Civil War Generals" to "List of American Civil War Generals" ;-). In the same way if you are into British history the "Indian Army" tends to be thought of as the pre-1947 outfit. But for people who are not versed in British history the name "British Indian Army" is much clearer. Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we all agree that a distinction between the pre- and post-partition Indian Army is useful, and indeed necessary. My objection to calling the pre-partition IA the British Indian Army is that this is a new, non-historical name for it, and further, that term is already widely used as a more general description of the Army in India, as the Google search shows. Hence it is confusing, as it loses the essential distinction from the British Army in India.

Geoff's Indian Army of the British Empire describes exactly what it was and is correct. Or if just talking about a certain period of that, one could use name(s) such as Indian Army (1902-1947), as originally suggested. Or, to keep the 3-word count: Indian Army (British), which you originally considered. How about that last one, for a compromise?  :-) mfc

I honestly don't know what's best. I could live with any of them but I see flaws in them all. I guess "Indian Army (1902-1947)" is the most explicit and, perhaps, least contentious. I think "Indian Army (British)" is too sneaky if people (like me) use the pipe trick whereas using the pipe trick on the (1902-1947) version is OK if I'm linking from, say, a WWI article. I haven't tried looking at what's used via Google but a quick scan of my WWI books shows "British Indian Army" used. The Australian WWI official history (published in the 1930s) just uses "Indian Army". Geoff/Gsl 07:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would have expected a book pre 1947 to use the Indian Army because when published there had only been one Indian Army! The only problem I see with Indian Army of the British Empire is a bit of a mouth full and personally I would shorten it to British Indian Army. After all the term "British Empire" is short hand for a very long frequently changing list (Berwick-upon-Tweed was missed of the list at the end of the Crimea War and did not make peace with the USSR, which was the inheritor of Russia's obligations, until the late 1960s!)). The trouble with the title Indian Army (British) is that it is no more or less explicit than British Indian Army and in pages like Naik one would end up with British Indian Army (British)| Indian Army which seems over complicated.

I wrote a stub of an article on Thomas Henry Burke an Irish politician. But there was already an article on a Thomas Henry Burke an American politician. So I put in his entry under Thomas Henry Burke, (1829 – 1882) and thinking that that was a good idea put in a couple of other entries the same day with date of birth and death. I was jumped on by several people who moved the entries to other names. One of them posted the following to my talk page:

As a general note, I have never seen name (date - date) as an article title on Wikipedia. It makes searching very hard. I am moved the articles listed by that a listing the redirects on Wikipedia:redirect for deletion. Burgundavia 07:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

So although technically accurate I do not think that using dates is a good idea. Philip Baird Shearer 11:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I guess ironically "British Indian Army" is the least ambiguous option then. "Indian Army of British India" might be another option, rather than "British Empire". I don't have a problem with a long article title as long as it's correct, but I'm not sure what "correct" is. Geoff/Gsl 23:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that the dates approach is perhaps not the best, and it's cumbersome, too. But 'British Indian Army' remains confusing, as that term is usually used to talk about the combined Indian Army + British Army in India.

Therefore, 'Indian Army (British)' seems to be the best option, and is very much in the general style of naming Wikipedia articles. It reads better too, with the important adjective (Indian) first and the modified/distinguishing adjective (British) suitably parenthetical. mfc


Philip Baird Shearer 23:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) :The Current British Mod seems to be happy with the name "British Indian Army" see: http://www.atra.mod.uk/atra/rmas/tour/iamr.htm
After the break up of the British Indian Army in 1948, the room became the Indian Army Museum and, in 1970, the Indian Army Memorial Room. The stained glass windows, the central chandelier, the crests hanging on the walls and the display of medals, portraits and other artefacts all commemorate the loyal service of the Gurkha Regiment and other regiments of British Indian Army.

[edit] Poll on Page Name

Enough said. Please see the discussion immediately above. Since there is no "official" term, we could use any. However there seems to be 5 options for a Page Name in the discussion. In alphabetical order these are: Philip Baird Shearer 16:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

British Indian Army

  1. Philip Baird Shearer 16:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. I'm comfortable with this... Geoff/Gsl 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

dates as in Indian Army (1857-1947)

Indian Army (British)

  1. This is way Wikipedia usually applies disambiguation, and is therefore ptobably the best term (in Wikipedia) for the Indian Army pre-1947. mfc

Indian Army of the British Empire

Indian Army of British India

Comments or second choices

Since there is no "official" term, we could use any.
Yes there is, it is 'Indian Army'. We are just disambiguating, here. mfc
British Indian Army
This is OK for referring to the the British Army in India. Some of the uses in articles are of that nature. It cannot be used for the Indian Army for reasons cited above; the term is already in use. mfc

[edit] Democracy

Hooray for democracy! Geoff/Gsl 23:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah .. looks like we've ended up with both names :-( mfc 05:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As User: Quota did not change any of the links to the page, I've moved it back. His main interest seems to be changing quotes on pages to annoy computer scientists. I am not sure why he chose to move a page on which there had been a poll, because there are no quotation marks of the type with which he is concerned. As he says he is the the pedantic alter ego of a regular Wikipedia contributor perhapse he would like to join this conversation as himself Philip Baird Shearer

[edit] India/British India

I amended a link from India (the current republic) to point to British India. It seems more appropriate: hope this is ok. Folks at 137 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battleboxes

Several battleboxes (eg, Operation Compass) refer to "India" or "British India" as a separate participant. Some editors argue that, as India was not independent at the time, its forces should not be shown separately from Britain's. Individual Indian formations could be identified in the text. Any thoughts? My amateur-2p-worth is that the Indian Army of the time was separately organised and distinct from the British Army in a way that those from Ceylon or the West Indies were not - so separate entry is appropriate. There's been debates about this issue here and here. Folks at 137 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritish_Indian_Army_1a12.html"