Talk:Indian Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

Narasimhan

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Gallantry and other awards

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

[edit] Hindi transliteration.

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

[edit] Agree that article is becoming too long

We should move certain sections of it to other pages.

iafguru 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndian_Army_0240.html"