Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7th Indian Infantry Division

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, without determination of whether or not the article should be retitled and retained or merged and redirected. The primary question here is whether or not the article should be deleted, and consensus there seems quite clearly that it should not. Even the nominator, towards the end, argues that the article should be kept and retitled. While in cases of clear consensus, AfDs may close as keep with a result of merge or redirect, debate as to whether or not this is appropriate here seems to be ongoing. The question of whether or not the article should be merged and redirected or if it should be rather retitled is more appropriately continued in article talk space by procedure set out at Help:Merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 7th Indian Infantry Division 1.1 Act break 1.2 Sources break 1.3 Process break 1.4 break

[edit] 7th Indian Infantry Division

7th Indian Infantry Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

There is already an article named 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) on the same topic(division). SMS ^Talk 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Redirects are cheap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think one should be deleted and as the division's current name is 7th Infantry Division, so in my point of view 7th Indian Infantry Division should be deleted. --SMS ^Talk 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, didn't see that extra word. Delete as duplicate page with misleading name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect It is _not_ a misleading name. It is a former name, during a major conflict. It should be a redirect, and without personally checking the history, one of these needs to preserve the edits per GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• If 7th Indian Infantry Division is a former name, then definitely a redirect needs to be left behind, pointing to the current name. Whether any information should be merged beforehand, I remain neutral on. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw my opinion: clearly this is a tangled and complicated issue which should be sorted out one"by those well-versed in the history. Kibbitzers from the sidelines, such as myself, should stay out till they reach a consensus. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Its name seems to be directing to the Indian 7th Infantry division which the current Indian Army has in it's 11 Corps. Currently there is no article on this, but there can be a misleading problem if an article is created on that infantry division too. --SMS ^Talk 06:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge text, but leave as redirect This was what I have already started, but the two names should be left as they were the most common names for the formation in their periods. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, leave this article for the World War II division and the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) for the post-partition division. The WW2 division would have contained different regiments, including a sizeable contingent from outside Pakistan. The lineage between the two divisions seems unclear. Leithp 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I think its name should be changed as it seems that it is a Division of the present Indian Army. --SMS ^Talk 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Leithp 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), which is what it was, constituted by the order of the United Kingdom's War Ministry, commanded by officers commissioned by the King of England, and in 1940, India, and duly disbanded on creation of India and Pakistan as independent states.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean like this 17th Indian infantry division [1]?! This unit article is misnamed. It should be 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom). The division was never a part of the Indian national Army, and was never a part of the Pakistan's Army either. Just because they borrowed the insignia, does not a lineage make. Just flattery.

This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You should put your opinion in the AfD. Leithp 10:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, I sometimes wonder whether you check sources. The British Indian Army was divided - some units went to Pakistan, others to India. It specifically says in several places that the 7th Division was the only division allocated to Pakistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit confilct) I don't know whether that's correct. I think that many of the pre-Independence Indian units became part of the Indian and Pakistani militaries upon Independence, with there being no break in the units' lineage. The 'British' Indian Army was mainly made up of Indians serving in Indian regiments under Indian officers, and these certainly weren't disbanded en-mass in 1947. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that any unit above regiment size can claim direct lineage from a pre-partition unit. Wouldn't those divisions have contained artillery, headquarters etc from outside India and Pakistan as well as a number of UK based battalions? I don't doubt that the Pakistani military has continuity of insignia etc though. Leithp 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No unit in either the Indian or the Pakistani armies, no matter the size, can claim lineage from the British Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My sources, why, I checked with King George VI. He told me that not one officer of the Indian or Pakistani armies were commissioned in the British Army after partition. What are your sources?

You fail to differentiate between personnel and equipment transfer between armies and actual administrative unit creation as acts of national governments, something we had a difference of opinion on in the matter of Ukrainian armed forces. I dare you to find one British national that continued to serve in the 7th Indian Infantry Division past the independence of Pakistan. Different countries Buckshot06.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lineage is not traced through either equipment, personnel or insignia, but by the continuity of the unit's service in the national forces.

PS. UK WW2 units in the category are a mess--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunetly the best site on this topic, regiments.org, is down at the moment. While the small British component of the Indian Army (which was never much more than 10% of the force's personnel - albeit including almost all of the senior officers as late as 1945) did indeed go home in 1947, the units survived more or less intact and were divided between the two countries and claim lineage from pre-Independence formations. It's no accident that the modern Indian and Pakistani order of battle looks a lot like the OOB from the Burma Campaign of WW2. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can contact the owner of regiments.org if you wish, but it is unnecessary. Several Indian divisions fought with Australian and New Zealand troops in the Middle East as detailed by Gavin Long in Australia in the war of 1939-45:Greece, Crete and Syria. On page 541 you will find calculation of the British government on how AIF was to be created as part of other forces subordinated to the British General Staff. Pakistan was not among them. While the Australian divisions required the Commonwealth Government's agreement to bring them into service, the same was not true for the divisions formed in India which were directed to form by Whitehall. Long confirms this on page 552 "India did not possess political independence and the British and Indian armies were virtually one."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't bring a source but I am pretty much sure that British nationals continued serving in 7th Infantry Division as they did in Pakistan Army for some initial years, after Pakistan was created. --SMS ^Talk 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some British officers continued to serve in the Pakistani Army,, but not necessarily in the division as 'volunteers'. Since one can only volunteer for service in one's own country's service, they were in fact mercenaries.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/redirectIt should be mixed with the Pakistan army 7th Infantry Division. I had asked an Indian author, Ravi Rikhye (of Orbat.com) this very question and he replied

A question my friend and I have had a disagreement over, which divisions were transferred to Pakistan on partition and of those still active; do they have their old formation signs from the British Indian Army, for instance 7th Div seems to have the golden arrow from before partition. Also I read that of the 1965 war divisions all except the armoured divs were from pre-partition.

Formation signs I do not know about. The sole div HQ that went to Pakistan was 7th. 8 and 9 Divs were raised in 1947; 10, 12 and 14 Divs were raised in 1948. 15 Div was raised in 1950. At some point before 1954, 6 Div was raised and 9 Div disbanded. 6 Div was disbanded at some point after 1954 as US assistance was available only for 1 armd and 6 inf divs. 1 Armd Div was raised 1956. 6 Armd and 11 Inf Divs were raised in ad hoc horm 1964-65. 16, 18 and 23 Divs were raised at some point between 1966-69, and 9 Div was reraised in this period. In March 1971, 17 and 33 Divs were raised to replace 9 and 16 Divs sent to East Pakistan. In East Pakistan, 36 and 39 Divs were raised as dummy divs. In November 35 and 37 Divs were ordered raised but obviously were not ready till well after the war. 9, 14, 16 Divs were reraised in 1972. FCNA was raised in 1976 if I recall right. 40 and 41 Divs were raised in the 1980s; I dont have dates. Two more divs have been raised under the rubric "Corps Reserves" for V and XXXI corps. More than that I cannot tell you because the information is part of Concise world Armies 2007, which we sell for $75 in E-book version (800 pages).

Clearly the formation;s lineage is that of the old Indian Army division since it was actually the one transfered. Since the formation dates was also with the British Indian Army, it should be deleted and "7th Indian Army division" should link to 7th Infantry Divison (Pakistan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten (talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge/redirect since use of identical insignia does not a lineage make! Lineage can only be traced through national service records, and the 7th Indian Infantry Division also changed its name for obvious reasons. All tat was transfered were assets and personnel already residing in, or moving to the newly created Pakistan. Division HQ may have included vehicles, equipment, stationary, and maybe even a few 'volunteer' officers, but not divisional records, treasury, security cods, personnel records, etc., the last of which can be found in the British Army servce record Archives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." is misleading and uninformed. A unit can not claim linage from another before the country it serves came into being.

Why not? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover to take over the personnel and assets of the British Army division, the British Army had to disband the division under the Indian Army Act, 1911 and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1939 c. 17, which it was mandated to do by the force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the only link between the two units is insignia.

As I suggested before, the article needs to be moved to the correct title in accordance with the Naming convention (units) as 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), and recategorised accordingly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg's argument is unfortunately incorrect - according to Wikisource, there is nothing in the Indian Independence Act about mandating to disband any units or formations - in regard to the armed forces, merely about adjustments to discipline arrangements. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The part about it being in Kohat is wrong that is true, it is based in Peshawar, where it was based in 1947. Except for movements during war that is where it has stayed since then. That is the extent of Mrg3105 correctness on this issue. Also British officer continued to serve in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Mrg, "virtually one" does not equate to actually. Were the British Army and British Indian Army not nominally distinct, irrespective of the political reality? You must appreciate that the "Commonwealth-style" regiment wasn't/isn't as....."transient", I suppose, as many of its counterparts - and I can only assume that that would apply to the post-partition divisions as well. You are correct that British regiments were indeed either disbanded (e.g: Calcutta Light Horse and the Calcutta Scottish) or repatriated to Britain. Most Indian formations and regiments were, however, allocated to India and Pakistan after partition, with the exception of four regiments of Gurkha Rifles which were transferred to the British Army. I've personally not read a single account of the military aspect of partition that hasn't discussed what happened during and after the allocation of units to India and Pakistan. These regiments were in all probability (regiments.org is down and I've misplaced my reference books!) disbanded and concurrently reconstituted, invariably under a similar title (with the imperialistic vestige naturally eliminated). That doesn't, however, signify the termination of their lineage. At least at the regimental level, the lineage of pre-partition regiments were preserved after allocation (and in the context of the armies of Australia/Britain/India/Pakistan, surely that encompasses a unit's history, colours, battle honours, uniforms, even some of the idiosyncratic traditions that may have been accumulated - such as the carrying of a third colour by the 4th Battalion of the Brigade of the Guards?) I believe many still maintain an affiliation with British regiments that had some form of relationship with their predecessors (for example the King's Regiment was affiliated with the 1st Battalion, Frontier Force Regiment and the 5th Battalion, Sikh Regiment). SoLando (Talk) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hi SoLando. Thank you for your insights. However, please note the discussion is about a division, not regiments.

By "virtually one" I suppose it means that the officers were moved from the regular Army list to the India list in terms of promotions. Other then that there were no significant differences with the exception of some particulars as to operating in India's climate and population.

It seems to me "in all probability" is not much better then "virtually one". In fact the disbandment is mandated by the Indian Independence Act 1947. I am not privy to which Act of the Indian Parliament constituted the Indian Army, but as part of it the above named Gurkha were renamed to Gorkha. The Royal titles were dropped from the regiments that joined the Indian Army. Clearly these were distinctly different units no longer subject to the King's oath even if India remained in the Commonwealth.

If you can demonstrate the truth of the statement "That doesn't, however, signify the termination of their lineage." with some sources, I would be greatly appreciative.

When did Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II present colours to the Indian Brigade of Guards 3rd Battalion (former 1 Rajputana Rifles)? What battle honours are on it?(clue: since 1947) The uniforms seem completely different from the British Army, even that of pre-1947. As for traditions, I have no idea, however I note the most interesting progression in the Wikipedia article "In 1921, the battalions finally took its current title, the 1st battalion of the Rajputana Rifles Regiment. As a result of this re-organization the following merged to form the battalions of the Rajputana Rifles Regiment: 1st Battalion - 104th Wellesley's Rifles and then to 3RD BATTALION BRIGADE OF THE GUARDS". Confused? That is because its the British 104th disbanded in 1947, and INDIAN 3rd bn Brigade of the Guards [2].

In any case, this has no bearing on the status of a division which is not a part of the regimental system.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of my comment was to highlight your position vis-á-vis unit lineage and perpetuation. Apologies for the invevitable incoherency: it's after 5:00 am! The adoption of a new political sytem, et al, is irrelevant; a unit's lineage is not contingent on whether the process of affirming a person's allegiance has been altered or a title changed - regiments aren't transient in that respect. I'm also confused by your reference to Queen Elizabeth II. Are you implying that for a regiment's lineage to be perpetuated, that the political and military structure that existed must remain unchanged? That invariably has no impact on the identity of a regiment, brigade, or division - at least in the context of militaries that have a "British-style" unit system. The Royal Scots, for example, served numerous countries - Denmark, England, France, Scotland, Sweden - before its return to the English (later British) establishment in 1678.(regiments.org).

The status of the British Indian Army would appear to be exceedingly complex. While it's explicity apparent that the lineages of pre-partition regiments are perpetuated, at least by the Indian Army and the regiments themselves, certain aspects of their history are evidently deemed "repugnant" (i.e. actions that involved conflict between Indians: see comment authored by T.F. Mills, who maintains regiments.org, and [3]). This profile of the Jat Regiment also demonstrates compelling evidence of lineage perpetuation.

The British Indian Army underwent two major reorganisations in the early 20th Century that resulted in successive name changes and ultimately the amalgamation of the entire lines of cavalry and infantry - their lineages were not discontinued, however. Instead, lineage was perpetuated at both battalion and regimental level. Redesignations and amalgamations are usually inconsequential in respects to lineage. Just review the OOB of the modern British Army ;-). The conferring of a Royal title, for example, was invariably prompted by a regiment distinguishing itself in battle - not an assertion of its legal status, or whatever. The 104th was a pre-reform regiment, composed of a single battalion. It was amalgamted with five other regiments and redesignated as the [1st Battalion (Wellesley) (See regiments.org). Now their collective histories didn't cease upon amalgamation. The new regiment merely "absorbed" them, perpetuated their traditions, heritage, battle honours on their colours, etc and built on that base. See the Royal Irish Rangers and its successor as an example. Now Regiments.org is a reliable, authoritative website that has been extensively used as a source on Wikipedia (it's from the archive as the site is currently unavailable). I've provided compelling sources, I hope. Can you provide verifiable sources supporting your stance (have I misunderstood you?) that a unit's lineage is dependent on a political system, even a unit's title, remaining unchanged? And to support your contention that the lineage of pre-partition regiments/divisions were terminated permanently by the ratification of the 1947 Independence Act, which is pertinent to this AFD.

Also, please don't alter comments made by other users, even if you are merely correcting a spelling error. Refer to WP:TALK. Oh, I almost neglected to explain the honorary third colour! That colour, which is evidently carried by the 4th Battalion of the Brigade of the Guards, was first awarded to the 2/15th BNI, later the 2nd Queen Victoria's Own Rajput Light Infantry, in recognition of the battalion's service in the Second Anglo-Maratha War. I must reiterate my earlier apology for what has become a tangential discussion. Regards, :-) SoLando (Talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly you have not really addressed the issue or provided sources to to back up the proposition that the lineage of the British India Army is perpetuated by the new Army of the Republic of India

• "While it's explicity apparent that the lineages of pre-partition regiments are perpetuated, at least by the Indian Army and the regiments themselves, certain aspects of their history are evidently deemed "repugnant" - Evidently the Indian Army can put anything they like on their flags. Lineage is perpetuated only when these are issued by the reigning monarch of Britain.
• In regards to the 104th, compare battle honours here [4] and here

Post-Independence

Theatre Honours: Jammu & Kashmir - 1947-48, Rajasthan - 1965, Punjab - 1965, East Pakistan - 1971 and Jammu & Kashmir - 1971.

Battle Honours: Akhaura, Burki, Gadra Road, Hilli, Naushera, Gurais, Shingo River Valley, Sylhet and Ganga Sagar.

No old pre-Independence BH for the Indian Guards.

• "Regiments.org is a reliable, authoritative website that has been extensively used as a source on Wikipedia (it's from the archive as the site is currently unavailable)." Well, yes and no. I have corresponded with Mr.Mills in the matter of British Militia during Napoleonic Wars, and he admitted that some tasks were beyond him. In this case I would say same is true since he provides same general statements about what happened before and after 15 August 1947.

• What happened was that

...initially FM Auchinleck and his SinC General Tuker advised Mountbatten that five years would be required to perform the sort of reorganisation he wanted to create two national armed forces. (p.138, The last days of the British Raj, Leonard Mosley, Wiedenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1961). Eventually to integrate the former units of the India Army into the two new national armed forces the War Ministry established the Armed Forces Reconstitution Committee at the start of July (six weeks before Independence) (p.141, Mosley) as part of the Joint Defence Council in India supervising division of the India Army.

They faced several problems. The Demobilisation Directorate begun to work to reduce the 2,500,000 armed forces of India Army to peacetime footing in 1944 although the permanent copy of the Draft Regulations for release from the Army were not issued until April 1945 because it was found that the under regulations of the Army Council the above Regulation did not apply to forces of the Indian states forces and British service personnel. (pp.225-227, Official history of the Indian Armed Forces in the Second World War 1939-45: Expansion of the Armed Forces and defence organisation, historical section (India and Pakistan), Sri Nandan Prasad PhD.,gen.ed. Bisheshwar Prasad, D.Litt., Orient Longman, 1956)

The reason the Armed Forces Reconstitution Committee was required, was because the Regulations for release from the Army came in two parts: release of individuals from service, and disbandment of units. The regulations were executed by the relevant unit HQ officers under command of the unit CO, which with rare exceptions were British. The air units were subject to similar regulation by the Air Ministry, while the naval units were subject to the RN.

Now, the thing is that all British officers disbanded their units, and went elsewhere...for the most part. Many were re-employed by the new Indian Army and Pakistani Army on contract basis for five years due to officer shortages in both. All were redistributed as required and for the most part did not remain with their old units. In any case most units were extensively reorganised on ethnic lines.

Political pressure ensured no British unit remained India after August 15 based on the statement by Nehru that "I would sooner have every village in India put to the flames then keep the British Army here after August 15" (in reply to Mountbatten on Auchinleck's suggestion to retain some units under British command to assure security for British subjects.

From the above we see that disbandment of the 14th Army begun well before Independence, and was completed by August 15, and this included the FM Auchinleck himself.

The units ceased to exist when its British COs demobilized themselves, and the HQ British Forces India and Pakistan that supervised the last of the troop movements between the two states was required to itself cease on the 31 December 1947 (p.926, Auchinleck, A critical biography, John Connell, Cassell, London, 1959). The last flag to be taken down over its HQ was, on the King's request, delivered to Windsor, while the flag mast was destroyed by the Royal Engineers, British Army's last act in India

This is why no lineage can exist between India Army units and the successor armed forces of India and Pakistan. Units of the India Army were disbanded by its own officers, and units of the armed forces of India and Pakistan were reconstituted under new governments. All standards were returned to United Kingdom (though where they are stored remains unknown to me). All records after the demobilised personnel were paid off were send to War Ministry Records Archives although duplicate rolls of the troops designated to remain in "community battalions" (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc.) were forwarded to the relevant national authorities.

That the new armed forces continued in some cases to refer to units by their old names in the immediate period after 1947 only reflects on the chaos that ensued. In the 1950s most if not all were substantially renamed. New battalions that had never existed in the India Army regiments were created. However, this is another story.

In the case of all divisions, they were all disbanded, the last being 4th Division which acted to supervise partition border between India and Pakistan under General Rees, later General Officer Commanding Punjab Boundary Force, India and Head Military Emergency Staff to Emergency Committee of Cabinet, India.

Thus ended India Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I must confess that I feel your response lacks......substance, and is particularly devoid of sources corroborating your assertions. I don't believe that extract supports your contention that the lineage of pre-partition units were terminated. It merely notes that units were disbanded - does it elaborate on whether these units were concurrently reconstituted? The Fourteenth Army formation has no application to the discussion; it didn't exist before the Second World War. Please provide a source supporting your contention that their lineage was permanently terminated (i.e. not "just" disbanded) and that "Lineage is perpetuated only when these are issued by the reigning monarch of Britain." Regiments aren't transient, they don't vanish or discontinue their lineage because of the adoption of a new political system. I feel obliged to repeat my earlier request: Can you provide verifiable sources supporting your stance (have I misunderstood you?) that a unit's lineage is dependent on a political system, even a unit's title, remaining unchanged? And to support your contention that the lineage of pre-partition regiments/divisions were terminated permanently by the ratification of the 1947 Independence Act, which is pertinent to this AFD.

Reading Valour and Sacrifice: Famous Regiments of India certainly conflicts with your contention that regimental standards were "repatriated" to Britain. Are you perhaps confusing actual British regiments with their Indian counterparts? This is a passage from the aforementioned book regarding the Grenadiers: The King's colours held by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th battalions were withdrawn and laid up at the IMA, Dehra Dun, in November 1950. The old regimental colours, however, continued on ceremonial occasions until the presentation of new colours to all the battalions and the Regimental Centre by the President of India in 1964. Those colours were clearly retained, as were the colours of the Jat Regiment and various others. That the regiments continued to be referred to by similar titles, had similar badges, et al is not emblematic of the chaos that followed partition. There was clearly a conscious effort (see link to Brigade of the Guards) to perpetuate the pre-partition regiments. Yes, the most conspicuous and tangible vestiges of imperialism were discarded on the proclamation of a Republic (royal titles, ciphers on colours and cap badges, etc) but I have found no evidence to suggest that signified a termination of lineage in the Indian Army, nor that an attempt to discontinue lineage happened. It's incumbent upon you to present sources supporting that, which I contend you have yet to do. Do I hear impasse being shouted? Discussion should be continued and definitive resolution sought from authoritative and/or official sources. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies if that seemed like a terse response: I haven't slept since early yesterday! Regards, SoLando (Talk) 12:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Units were reconstituted, but by the authority of the Congress of India, and not the King. Youu need to read the Independence Act to understand this (its in Wiki somewhere I think).

Certainly all Corps and divisions of the Fourteenth and Twelfth Armies were commanded by the British officers. When they demobilised themselves and their HQ personnel, they also disbanded the Corps and divisions which were authorised by the War Department in UK. Whatever was reconstituted by the Indian Congress was not the same entity in the legal and constitutional (i.e. constitution of His Majesty's Armed Forces, not Constitution) sense. It was Indian government's right to call its constituted units and formations whatever they wanted, and obviously they chose to "cling to Empire" rather then to invent their own, but naming units dos not automatically confer on them the status of legacy from a similarly named unit of another sovereign state. Consider how many 1st Infantry divisions there are in the World, or 7th for that matter since same applies to Pakistan. The different political system is what allows armed forces of a nation to come into being, mostly to defend the sovereignty.

I don't know why some units kept British colours, but these having been issued by the King who was no longer Emperor of India, they make no sense since the new Oath was to the Indian Congress, the President of which issued replacements as is the correct process according to the Indian Constitution.

I don't know why people fail to understand how governance, law and armed forces relate to each other, and why no unit can just decide to "inherit" the identity of another unit from a different state. Please read the Act which is fairly explicit.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the dynamics and complexities of transition and legal national succession, but you have still not produced evidence (secondary sources) to even support your contention that the independence of India signified a total severence between the modern Indian Army and the pre-partition units and formations and the discontinuation of their lineages. Until you do, Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is. Even the British Army would appear to recognise the lineage of Indian and Pakistani regiments. As I mentioned earlier, the King's Regiment maintained affiliations with the 5th Battalion of the Sikh Regiment and 1st Battalion of the Frontier Force Regiment. These alliances originated from 1911 when the Manchester Regiment (predecessor to the King's) was brigaded with the 47th Sikhs and the 59th Scinde Rifles. Commonwealth regiments are damned confusing entities. Entire books have been dedicated to the peculiarities of that system. It's no problem, really. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105's assertions are palpably not true. The assets of the old British Indian Army were transeffered to Pakistan/India. There seems to be some confusion as the difference between the British Army in India (which were the British ARmy stationed in India) and the British Indian Army (which was the army raised mostly from locals). The assets of the latter were transferd to the new nations. For example Northern Command in Rawalpindi became the GHQ of Pakistan Army and its head, General Messervy the new Pak Army CinC. British officers continued to serve in Pakistani units amnd in high posts for several year, the first two army chiefs of the Pakistan army were British, Messervy and Gracey, most of the senior officers contined to be British for many years, the description given above was about the British Army in India, which was withrawn with the last battalion, (of the Black Watch IIRC) leaving in Febuary '48.

Units were divided up on basis of region rather than ethnicity. For example all the Frontier Regiments and all bar one (2nd) of the Punjab Regiments went to Pakistan, the men who had opted for a different country were transfered, for example FM Marneckshaw was from the 12 Frontier Force Regiment, he went to the Gurkas. The regiments themselves remained intact as did formations, the withrawls that Mrg3105 mentions were about the British Army not British Indian Army regiments.

This particular division was a formation of the British Indian Army not the British Indian Army in India, they belonged to different armies, the army it belonged to was divided on 14th August 1947 and it was one that went to the new Pakistan Army. The fact that the 7th went to Pakistan is recorded in many books about partition, the official records of the Pakistan Army such as Brian Cloughys "History of Pakistan Army", Shakaut Riza's "Pakistan Arrmy till 1965", the official history of the Pakistan Army(signed by a British officer who was its first CinC), by military writers such as Ravi Rikhye etc, mrg3105 sems to be waging a lone crusade to "prove" that no lineage can exist, and he is alone in this. Lineage in the Indo-Pak army date to the British Indian Army and before that to the East India Company forces, for example there Hodson's Horse in the Indian Army or Guides Cavalry in the Pakistan army, the standards of the old regiments are still with them they were never sent to London, Guides still has the standard and colours it captured during the mutiny, 4 Baloch a French flag captured 200 years ago.

Personally I feel that this article should be made a redirect to 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) and perhaps the name should be changed to 7th Infantry Division British India and Pakistan since this is more accurate. It is the only Pakistani formation that has this controvesry. The other division hq transfered was the 6th Infantry Division comprising Bahawalpur state forces, this was disbanded in 1956, its insignia is now that of the 35th Infantry Division, but otherwise it has no linkge. This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan (for instance Command and Staff College Quetta) became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day. And yet mrg3105 is arguing it has no linkage to the present Pakistan division! Next we'll hear the Albert Einstein in US was a different person from Albert Einstein in Germany or Switzerland.

Also the above quotations that Mrg3105 uses are inaccurate as well. Fourteenth Army never disbanded, it became Malaya Command at the end of the war, as mentioned above the units were never disbanded, the Brigade of the Guards is still around in India, it never stopped functioning even for a day, and the Punjab Boundry Commission was not run by the 4th Division, but rather by the 10 Baluch Regiment.

I don't know if I want to answer anonymous posts, but...

• Declaring "Mrg3105's assertions are palpably not true." before offering proof is the logical equivalent of "cart before the horse"
• Units were divided by ethnicity. Muslims went to all-Muslim units, Hindus and Sikhs to Indian units. Its a matter of record.
• Regiments did not remain intact. Personnel which had to be transferred to their "community battalion" were moved as platoons, companies and in some cases battalions.
• There was no "British Indian Army", only the British "India Army", just as there was a British Spain Army during Napoleonic Wars, and British France Army during First World War though neither were called that. An army only exists by the force of the authority which constitutes it, and maintained by the representatives of this authority. In this case the authority was the reigning British monarch, and the representatives were officers which were commissioned to officiate on the monarch's behalf in India. Hence they were on the India List, and to serve anywhere else an officer had to transfer to the Regular List.
• I don't really care what you or anyone else "believes" or "feels". It could be that none of these authors read and understood the Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which dissolved the King's authority over any British forces in India. By then there were no British forces in India or Pakistan. Any British officers remaining served under contracts to India and Pakistan, and not under King's commission. However, they remained on the Regular list, and the King had the right of their recall to UK at any time, or if they refused, to forfeit their commission. Therefore the Division could not be reconstituted by a British officer. Having been declared nul and void by the King and an Act of Parliament. Whatever units were created in India and Pakistan were constitutionally entirely new creations.
• Albert Einstein in US was a different person from Albert Einstein in Germany or Switzerland. You should at least bother to look in the infobox of the Wiki article!

German (1879–96, 1914–33)

Swiss (1901–55)

American (1940–55)

As you can see same concept applies. An authority has to issue the identification that the individual has a citizenship in a given sovereign state. At different times in his life Einstein had dual citizenship. However units and formations of armed forces can not serve two sovereign states simultaneously. Linage means continuity, but continuity can not exist between different political systems that provide the authority for existence of the said force because it would cause split loyalties.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Act of parliament did not "dissolve the Kings Authority" over India. Rather it created two new dominions, India and Pakistan where the Kings authority remained de jure if not de facto. And as for you second part about drawing an analogy between the British Spanish Army, and the British India Army, well thats completely wrong as well. As this article says clearly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army

"the Army of India consisted of two separate entities: the Indian Army and the British Army in India. The former consisted of Indian Army regiments originating in India, while the latter were British Army regiments originating in the United Kingdom which were sent to India on a tour of duty"

The Indian Army was not paid for and its regiments and formations were not created and paid for by the British Goverment, but by the Government of India, which was responsible to the Emperor and the Secretay of State. The legal diffence was important, the officer of the army were not "British officers" at all, but the Kings Commissioned Indian officers.

As for the sources, well lets see, Brain Cloughly is the main western authority on the Pakistan Army, he has served as the defence attache (Australian) in Islamabad, Shaukaut Riza, served in the second world war in Italy and then commanded company in 1948 war, a brigade in 1965 and a division in 1971. Their books are standard references on the Pakistan Army. Both of them are with respect far more reliable than what you have presented which incidentally is supported by no other authority and is dangerously close to original research.

Units were not divided by ethnicity. Units were never as a matter of policy (except a few sikh battalions IIRC) ever ethnically pure. Take the 8th Punjab Regiment which went to Pakistan.

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/8punjabreg.html

Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Sikhs, Rajputana Hindus (other than Rajputs, Jats and Mers) Punjabi Mussalmans; Muslims from Punjab.

Here another one the 10 Baluch Regiment

http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/10baluchreg.html

Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Pathans, Baluchis and Brahuis 1946 Punjabi Mussalmans from the Punjab (less Ambala Civil Division) including Niazi and other Pathans from the Punjab. Hazarawalas of NWFP and Mussalmans of Jammu and Kashmir State and Gilgit Agency, Dogras from the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir State. From within the administrative borders of the NWFP of British India. NWFP states and Tribal Territory.

Dogras being Hindu.

And as for lineage The Rajput Regiment http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES//index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=105&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

The Rajput Regiment is from the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) lineage. 31st Bengal Native Infantry, raised in 1778, later became 3 Rajput

And another one Garwhal Rifles In 1891, the two Gorkha Companies were separated and the remaining six Garhwali companies were re-designated as the 39th Garhwal Regiment of the Bengal Infantry.

You have not prodeced a single authoratative link or source which supports your assertions. With the above supporting eveidence and the letter from Mr Ravi Rikhye of Orbat.com, it is submitted that mrg3105 be overruled and this article be merged with the Pakistani 7th Infantry Division page where it belongs.

I just want to hi-light what the above wikipedian said : 'This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan (for instance Command and Staff College Quetta) became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day. And yet mrg3105 is arguing it has no linkage to the present Pakistan division!'

The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division, and thus, along the lines of 4th Indian Division, all the information should be at one page, probably the present day formation, with redirects elsewhere. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon' does indeed present a cogent argurment against Mrg's position, although I recommend they moderate their tone to a degree. Discuss the subject not the user. Mrg, it is incumbent upon you to produce secondary sources that support your contention that the units, et al of the Indian and Pakistan Armies legally or otherwise severed their connection with the pre-partition military. I've scrutinised the Indian Independence Act at Wikisource and could not identify a single passage that corresponds with your claims. The overwhelming majority of sources presented at this AFD have supported the position that Indian and Pakistani units formally perpetuate the lineage of their predecessors. Your sources are not compelling, in that they do not appear to even suggest the termination of lineage upon the declaration of independence and subsequent proclamation of a republic. Nor have the legal ramifications of such events been substantiated. Clearly the Indian Independence Act did not have such an impact as Royal designations, etc, were not omitted until 1950. They were evidently superficial amendements that appear to have had no substantive impact on the identity of these units. Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented.I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is.. SoLando (Talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact no actual sources have been brought to support lineage transfer from the British units to Indian and Pakistani Armies other then Indian and Pakistani websites and archived regiments.org! These can not be used as sources since they themselves do not cite sources and represent POV or OR or both.

On the other hand I sighted original and secondary sources, including an Act of Parliament which obviously neither you nor Buckshot06 have been able to understand, an order by the last C-in-C of the India Army, a description of the process that took place from an official publication of the Indian Army, and a book by a reputed UK writer.

I also provided a logical argument which has not been repudiated.

Actually, since I was not the one who commenced the AfD, the onus is on that editor to prove such lineage exists.

Change of a unit's name, in tis case 7th Indian Infantry Division, alone would convince any reasonable person that a change in political system was its reason since the division was created as a part of the sovereign state of Pakistan which immediately went to war with the sovereign state of India. This change in name was not sanctioned by the authorities in United Kingdom because no such formation was by then existing in its Order of Battle.

What exactly would you find "compelling", eyewitnesses?! --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, your continued insistence that the India Independence Act proves that linkages between pre- and post- Independence formations is, frankly, baffling. Both SoLando and I have examined the document without success to find something that matches your claims - there's no mention of the word 'disbandment' anywhere, for example. Could you direct us to the clause that you're referring to? - it might make it a bit clearer. The C-in-C's order is on the name of the Army, not the future lineage links of its divisions, and neither of your other two written sources provides official confirmation of breaking or continuing lineages. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note the original proposer's request

• "I think one should be deleted and as the division's current name is 7th Infantry Division, so in my point of view 7th Indian Infantry Division should be deleted. --SMS Talk 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"

Unit articles should not be titled on their "current" name, but on their "name on formation", since the "current" name is subject to future change, maybe tomorrow.

The AfD is based on "point of view"

Buckshot06, what is your source for te statement "The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division"?

I shall have to 'digest' the Act for your 'consumption' :o\--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the editor above 'This particular formation was active on 13th August 1947, indeed its peacetime operations was on the Afghan frontier, on 14th it along with all other Northern Command assets and other training centers located in what is now Pakistan became part of the Pakistan army, it was never "disbanded" not even for a day.' That's a clear linkage - unbroken service. I don't think anyone has tried to say that the division HQ was dispersed. On the act, please don't digest it, I'd rather you gave me a reference to the specific clause(s?) that are relevant. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Act break

From sublime to the ridiculous. An unsigned "editor" is "quoted" as a "source" of divisional operations of a Second World War British formation as a "clear linkage"! I would remind you on Wikipedia guidelines, but I fear I would waste time if you choose to stoop to these sort of sources now.

I pointed you to the clauses much earlier to which you replied "::Mrg's argument is unfortunately incorrect - according to Wikisource, there is nothing in the Indian Independence Act about mandating to disband any units or formations - in regard to the armed forces, merely about adjustments to discipline arrangements. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)"

So...

The Act represents a Legislation that authorises the Crown to raise and employ armed forces. Similarly other Acts make provisions for demobilisation and disbandment of these forces. Forces can only exist within the authority of the Crown as as per the arrangements made between it, and the Parliament since 1707.

The Indian Independence Act 1947 was such an act, removing authority of the Crown and UK Parliament to maintain any forces in India. Although the Crown was still represented by a GG, the responsibility of the GG was severely limited to overseeing the transition of authority, and ad no conventional powers exercised on behalf of the Crown in other Commonwealth states. With both Dominions becoming republics in the 1950s, this too ended.

• 6. (1) The legislature of each of the New Dominions shall have full power to make laws for that Dominion, including laws having extra-territorial operation.

(2) No law and no provision of any law made by the Legislature of either of the new Dominions shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of this or any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Legislature of each Dominion include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the Dominion.

In simple English it means the governments of new Dominions can make own laws, and repeal old laws made in UK, and no future laws made in UK have any validity in Dominions of India and Pakistan.

• (5) No Order in Council made on or after the appointed day under any Act passed before the appointed day, and no order, rule or other instrument made on or after the appointed day under any such Act by any United Kingdom Minister or other authority, shall extend, or to deemed to extended, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion.

For why this is important please read here for basic history of the British Army.

• 11. (1) The orders to be made by the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act shall make provision for the divisions of the Indian armed forces of He Majesty between the new dominions, and for the command and governance of those forces until the division is completed.

Means Mountbatten was responsible for completion of hand over of forces.

(2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.

Means the British officers can use disciplinary laws while in employment of the new Dominions, but are not subject to any laws of the new Dominions.

12. (1) Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction or authority of His Majesty's Government United Kingdom, or of the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council or the any other United Kingdom authority, in relation to any of His Majesty's forces which may, on or after the appointed day, be in either of the new Dominions or else where in the territories which, before appointed day, were included in India, not being Indian forces.

Means the King retained command over members of British Army,, but not Indian Army.

(2) in its application in relation to His Majesty's forces, the Army Act shall have effect on or after the appointed day- (a) as if His Majesty's Indian forces were not included in the expressions "the forces" His Majesty's" and "the regular forces" and (b) subject to the further modifications specified in parts I and II of the third Schedule to this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and to any provision any law of the Legislature of the Dominion, concerned, all civil authorities in the new Dominion, and, subject as aforesaid and subject also to the provisions of the last preceding section, all service authorities in the new Dominions, shall, in those Dominion and in the other territories which were included in India before the appointed day, perform in relation to His Majesty's Military forces, not being Indian forces, the same functions as were, before the appointed day, performed by them or by the authorities corresponding to them, whether by virtue of the Army Act or otherwise, and the matters for which provision in to be made by order of the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act included facilitating of the withdrawal from the new Dominion and other territories aforesaid of His Majesty's military forces not being Indian forces.

This means all British troops shall go away, and the former forces of India Army continue to reorganise themselves subject to GG's plan.

By this stage (late 1946) all the wartime-created nits and formations had been disbanded. Any British administrative facilities such as divisional HQs were occupied by caretaker teams responsible for asset handover, and were not a part of the divisions themselves since all the garrisons (2nd battalions?) by now had been disbanded and there were no wartime field head quarters either.

I will post moore later--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And where dose it say that existing units of the British Indian Army, not the British Army are disbanded? Nowhere.58.65.163.248 (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you liike answering youur own quuestins, I will lave you to have a chat with yourself--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And to add a bit more, sec 11 which calls for the division of the Indian Armed forces, support my argument. No one is suggesting that the forces were not divided, simply that this was a formation that was infact part of the division (no pun intended) and was allocated to Pakistan. A fact that has been mentioned time and time ane time again, by both "Indian and Pakistani" authors, who mrg3105 seems to hold in such little regard (apparently they don't know the history of their own army) and by the main western authority on the Pakistan Army such as Brain Cloughly and also IIRC by John Keegan (though I read that a long time ago, so I cannot be absolutly certain so it is not offered as proof). The Act simply gives some individuals the power to undertake the division of the military. It dose not say anything about the units and formations themselves. As it is, if you can find me an order given by the Viceroy or Auchinleck or any other person so empowered to the effect of "all units of the Indian army are hereby dissolved and their colours laid up" which is the defination of disbandment, then I would beleive you. But then there are no such ordersm (except for regiments like the Calcutta Scottish which recruited from the British living in India anyway).--58.65.163.248 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"A fact that has been mentioned time and time ane time again, by both "Indian and Pakistani" authors", but no sources provided!

Brian Cloughley

See above for process of disbandment and last order. A last order by the CinC is given when no more orders are required because no more units, or indeed individal personnel need orders issuued.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, posted last order elsewhere, so here it is

I will quote a document by the former C-in-C of the Army, Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck who must be one of the best sources possible on the name of the Army:

• SPECAL INDIA ARMY ORDER

by

His Excellency Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck

G.C.B., G.C.I.E., C.S.I., D.S.O., O.B.E.

Commander-in-Chief India

New Delhi, 14 August 1947

S.I.A.O. 79/S/47 Discontinuance of India Army orders.

This is the last India Army order.

R.A.Savory Lieutenant-General

Adjutant-General in India

(p.898, Auchinleck, A critical biography, John Connell, Cassell, London, 1959)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the British Indian Army was at that date divided, its assets given over to the new dominion forces. That is not the question at hand, since all agree that the British Indian Army was divided up, the question is about this formation, which as all those authors whose books I have mentioned states this division was transfered to the Pakistan army, nothing that you have stated says that this was not the case. Indeed higher formations, or command are routinely disbanded that dose not necessarily mean that its components are being disbanded, indeed right now the V Corps (United States) is being disbanded but its constituent units, 1 AD, 1 ID are still around and being redsitributed elsewhere. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the books you mentioned? If so, feel free to quote :o)

You should know the US Army operates differently to the British Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also going by this logic there is no linkage between the Royal Scots of the Scottish Army and the Royal Scots of the British Army, since after all the Scottish Army was disbanded upon union in 1707.58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Do not confuse History of armed forces on the British Islands, and Official records of the British Army. The last are subject to legislations, including those that obligate for these records to be kept,, something non-existent before 1707.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In case of the Scots, the Royal Warrant was simply reissued after 1707, but under new Parliament's Act. Its not a good example to use in this case, as is any subject of the regimental system.

Commanders of brigades and higher formations are the right place to look. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"British rule over India came to an end on 14 August 1947 and with it also ended the old institution of British honours and awards. The new Indian awards could come into being only with the dawn of the Republic on 26 January 1950." and "The first batch of decorations introduced on 26 January 1950 was thus made effective with retrospective effect from 15 August 1947." [5] --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, and excerpt from the service record of the first commander of the 7th Pakistan Infantry Division

• Loftus-Tottenham, Frederick Joseph A/Maj.Gen. 04.08.1944-(04.1946)

04.08.1944-1945 General Officer Commanding, 81st (West Africa) Division (India, Burma) [except for 15-26.8.1944 & 31.1-2.3.1945]

1946-1947 Commander, Force 401 (Iraq)

27.02.1948 transferred, Special List (ex-India Army) [23216]

(1948) General Officer Commanding, 7th Pakistan Infantry Division

28.08.1950 ceased to be employed with the Pakistan Armed Forces and reverted to retired list (Regular Army Reserve of Officers)

[6]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, I would advise you to remain civil in your interactions with other users and accept that people have diverging opinions. That's the very essence of a collaborative project such as this and without such an attribute one is liable to create ill-feeling in the future. I've been a Wikipedian for almost five-years and I can assure you unnecessary Wikidrama is something that must always be avoided. I'm sorry but the Independence Act is unacceptable as a source as it neither suggests or provides explicit support for your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling. It amounts to OR as you are effectively establishing judgement from the document without using supporting secondary sources. You have still not presented evidence supporting your position that lineage was terminated, nor evidence supporting the legal military ramifications of independence and republic. That the Government of India now had the capacity to repeal laws and acts that had been enacted by the United Kingdom do not demonstrate conclusitivity to me. The redesignation of a unit also does not signify a "new beginning" and the termination of lineage, as you evidently believe - which appeared to be a motivator for your proposal at the British Divisions of World War II page. That isn't how Commonwealth-style units operate and Wikipedia must reflect established reality. Are you perhaps applying the Soviet concept? Not that I'm familiar with the units of the Soviet Union. Your dismissal of an opposing POV by attempting to devalue the authority of presented sources does not convince me of the veracity of your claims. I shall partially reproduce yesterday's message: Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented.I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is... Regards, SoLando (Talk) 09:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: That British awards were abolished is inconsequential. We're discussing unit lineage. SoLando (Talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Them are a lot of words.

• What sources were brought that prove transfer of lineage from The India Army 7th Indian Infantry Division to 7th Pakistan Infantry Division?
• I do not have actual documents ordering disbanding of the division which need to be requested from British Archives. It seems this will be the only proof you will accept.
• "I would advise you to remain civil in your interactions with other users" - which, the unsigned poster, or Buuckshot06 who quoted him/her as a source?
• "and accept that people have diverging opinions." - but in Wikipedia we do not deal with opinions, right?
• "the Independence Act is unacceptable as a source as it neither suggests or provides explicit support for your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling." - so why are British forces mentioned in it?
• "It amounts to OR as you are effectively establishing judgement from the document without using supporting secondary sources." - actually I quoted the final order by the CinC The India Army,, which is a supporting document. It was in fact the last order issued to British forces before the publishing of the Act.
• "You have still not presented evidence supporting your position that lineage was terminated, nor evidence supporting the legal military ramifications of independence and republic." - Ok, I'm willing to repeat myself. I will do so later by breaking the whole process into clearer steps.
• "That the Government of India now had the capacity to repeal laws and acts that had been enacted by the United Kingdom do not demonstrate conclusitivity to me." - not just repeal. No laws used to administer and garrison India by British applied. This included everything, including all things military. Since the The India Army 7th Indian Infantry Division which had been removed from the UK Order of Battle. The Pakistan Congress had no power to restore it to UK Order of Battle, only to its own. Somewhere there is a ledger recording the first day of that division with no prior record to 15 August 1947.
• "The redesignation of a unit also does not signify a "new beginning" and the termination of lineage, as you evidently believe - which appeared to be a motivator for your proposal at the British Divisions of World War II page." - It wasn't a redesignation, but a creation. A unit can not be redesignated by another, even Commonwealth, country after it had been removed from the UK OOB.
• "That isn't how Commonwealth-style units operate" - Ok, how do they work? BTW, 'operate' is the right word. The reason Pakistan asked to hire British officers is because it could not make its new Army operational without them.
• "Wikipedia must reflect established reality." - your impression of reality seems to differ from mine .
• "Are you perhaps applying the Soviet concept?" - No, another story.
• "Your dismissal of an opposing POV by attempting to devalue the authority of presented sources does not convince me of the veracity of your claims." - for the record, I dismiss all POV unsupported by verifiable sources. What are they inn this case?
• Consensus outside of Wikipedia is unequivocal from the sources presented. I will therefore repeat my earlier observation: Wikipedia's articles should represent mainstream consensus and consensus would appear to be in support of lineage continuation. Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. We're here to represent verifiability and the mainstream, albeit in a balanced fashion, and not the "truth" - however subjective a term that is...- And I repeat, IF the "mainstream consensus" is based on actual verifiable sources I will gladly accept them, if not, it is just erroneous belief based on nothing but wishful thinking. Consensus is not based on votes, but on consensus that sources are acceptable to base the article on, agreed?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the incivility that you have begun to exhibit towards other users. Moderating ourselves is essential to constructive discussion. Ample sources have been presented demonstrating that Indian and Pakistani units are perpetuating the lineage of their pre-partitition predecessors. Let's not cycle the debate here. Those sources seem reliable, in accordance with RS. What is disputed here is the legal status of that lineage. The independence act is essentially a primary source, which doesn't even contain the suggestion of lineage discontinuation - the complete severance between the modern Indian and Pakistan armies and the pre-partition Indian Army - that would support your position contending termination of lineage, either by national transition and/or unit retitling, as I observed earlier. We're going to be repeating ourselves ad infinitum here until the AFD is closed, I fear. I'm sorry but the final order by the C-in-C also is a primary document which doesn't appear to even suggest support from my cursory glance. Secondary sources are needed here to support what is a highly contentious assertion. That is what is required and I don't believe none of us are going to reach a resolution until that is achieved. SoLando (Talk) 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

addemdum:Consensus in the context of outside sources, which have demonstrated lineage continuation suffcient to engender support from multiple users. SoLando (Talk) 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources break

What are the "outside sources, which have demonstrated lineage continuation"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...and how are they reliable and in accordance with Wikipedia:RS#Claims_of_consensus?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and demonsration in respect that almost all sources have contained reference and implication of unit perpetuation. This link appears to support the transfer of the 7th Division to Pakistan (unless there was a particularly unusual numbering sequence in the reconstitution of units). Admittedly, I do not find it compelling but it appears to be more substantive than the sources you have presented. You are arguing that there has been a termination of lineage - legally or otherwise. Where are the secondary sources demonstrating that. It is incumbent upon to produce those sources for such an exceedingly contentious claim to substantiation your claims on the legal ramifications of independence, republic, redesignation, military constitution, et al. Apologies for my preceding brief reply. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 11:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth regiments aren't transient in respect to lineage. Lineage and continuity encompass so much more than the organic elements, and extends to, for example, battle honours, history, traditions, customs, insignia, et al. My own personal project, the King's Regiment, has undergone numerous amalgamations and redesignations and yet the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment is its perpetuation, inheriting its traditions and battle honours, and so forth. Now I appreciate you are arguing that there has been a legal severence and this therefore has limited relevance. But you have not produced evidence - secondary sources - explicitly supporting your intrepetation of the legal ramifications and legitimacy of lineage claims by Indian and Pakistani units. SoLando (Talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contention has hinged on the utilisation of primary sources, of which none allude to continuity and perpetuation. All sources that have been presented here contain the implication of lineage. What you have disputed is its legal status. I've scoured Google Books for evidence supporting your claim which did not yield a supporting source. Perhaps Red Coats to Olive Green: A History of the Indian Army 1600-1974 and Fidelity & Honour: The Indian Army from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-first Century may contain pertinent information. SoLando (Talk) 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We base our judgement on verifiability, most important in situations of contention. Truth is a subjective term and on Wikipedia verifiability takes precedence. I'm continuing to scour Google Books for a resolution. This is from India and Pakistan; a Political Analysis: There was a direct continuity between the regiments founded by British officers a hundred years ago or more and the new formations of the new armies. SoLando (Talk) 11:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The link you supplied by Brig. (Ret.) Noor A. Husain is actually reproduced from his book by numerous other sites. You will note there are no supporting references to sources. You will not find them in the book either.

Again, I ask what secondary sources do you think I should produce?

Please understand the the process.

• GHQ India would determine which order the formations and divisions were to be demobilised. Upon this decision an order was issued.
• The CO of the unit would then issue appropriate orders for each sub-unit concerned, and the clerks of the sub-units would issue individual discharge orders.
• The formation CO and his Adjutant would then discharge themselves last, and be immediately placed on the officer lists.
• With the dispatch of all records to the Secretary, Military Department India (Mayne, Sir Ashton Gerard Oswald Mosley Gen. (retd 01.09.1947)) the officers were either: reassigned command, placed in reserve (a trip home), retired as Mayne, or employed by the Dominions.
• The formation records, once accounted for by the Military Department India and telegraphed to UK, were sent by ship while the War Ministry duly struck the formation and its constituent parts off the Order of Battle.

This process begun in late 1944 administratively, and in earnest in terms of discharges from June (?) 1945. By 1947 all that remained on the OOB India were regional Commands that largely administered reduction of British forces in India and repatriation of Allied POWs, security of Japanese, Italian and German POW camps, and own garrisons.

No field Army, Corps or Division operational HQs remained other then the 4th division which shortly before partition was renamed into a Border Force. Some six weeks before the Independence, with virtually all British troops gone, the movement of former India Army troops commenced based on ethnic affiliations.

At this time the only officers remaining were those representing GHQ Commands (regions) at facility handovers. They had a disbanded formation or sub-unit ledger, and they would go through the ledger with receiving Dominion officer after which the later would sign as the authority representing the Dominion. The ledger would of course reference the formation to which the facility and its assets belonged to because that is how it was known to the Committee. After the handover the Dominions could start working on the composition of their own units, and eventually own OOB. They chose to "cling to Empire" and use old unit titles and even insignia. I guess they were now free to call their units anything they wanted. In the case of Gurkhas the change only concerned one letter. In Pakistan the word Indian was duly removed from the the title. It didn't matter. The unit had been removed from the UK OOB permanently. I would guess that political pressure of the Foreign Office anxious to keep both Dominions in the Commonwealth through it prudent not to point out the obvious.

The myth that Indian and Pakistani formations and units maintain lineage to The India Army is based solely on the self-reference of those forces to themselves as past members of The India Army, and has no basis in UK military law, procedure, UK or Commonwealth, or legislative basis in either UK or the Dominions, and certainly not after both became republics.

Having written all this, it occurs to me that because this was such a common process that virtually every British officer had to go through, it is unlikely to be documented outside official records. What this means is that I am unlikely to be seen as being right unless I pay for the Archival searches!

I have quoted the best place available for this to be verified from an official publication of the national Indian Army. I will get a book about Messervy, 15.08.1947-10.02.1948 Commander-in-Chief, Pakistan Armed Forces. I will also contact some people in UK who may be able to help, but I strongly suspect this will not be resolved by AfD end date, nor will I be able to show "secondary sources" aside from those that illustrate the legislative basis of existence of any division on the UK OOB from the Duke of York reforms that created first divisions inn 1809 to those of today.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Red Coats to Olive Green: A History of the Indian Army 1600-1974 was published in Bombay 1974, the height of India-Pakistan conflict, and can not be said to be neutral.
• Fidelity & Honour: The Indian Army from the Seventeenth to the Twenty-first Century Oxford University Press ,1999 ,New Delhi, Bunch of essays presented in honour of Prof. S. Sankaranarayanan, on archaeology and culture, epigraphy, religion and philosophy, literature; and art and architecture have fresh and original interpretations. The essays on archaeology and culture cover the 684p.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but I do not agree. The sources that have been presented by myself and others are verifiable and reliable (many of which are independent of the Indian and Pakistani militaries). They cannot be dismissed because of their organisational affiliation or for being accused by you of being effectively ignorant; they're hardly extremist in nature ;-). Primary sources (independence act, archives, et al) cannot - I repeat CANNOT - be used to support your position as it is evidently exceedingly contentious and disputed. Produce secondary sources supporting your claims vis-á-vis the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, termination of lineage, etc. Otherwise you'll be effectively engaged in the propagation of original research. We represent verifiability, not truth. And what is verifiable is the claim by India and Pakistan of lineal continity. What isn't is your position that it is not legally valid. Please understand that I sympathise with you. I've been in many situations where I knew believed something was true but I could not verify it using reliable secondary sources. I've also been musing on a paradox. Surely the British government would have issued a formal protest requesting that Indian and Pakistani units not claim lineal descent from their pre-partition antecedents, were they not legally entitled? Would regiments from the United Kingdom not also be prohibited from maintaining official affiliations with their counterparts on the sub-continent who claim lineage from pre-partition regiments that had maintained relationships with British units? I concede that's purely hypothetical but it is intriguing. That's Wikipedia. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well,, since I am no the proposer, but opposer here, is not the onus on the proposer to show secondary sources? Regardless of the rank of the Pakistani author, if they are just his understanding of things, how are they more authoritative? In Pakistan a general can write anything he wants as we all know.

Excuse me Mrg, on what basis are you making nasty comments about what Pakistanis can and cannot write? Everyone can judge all written work based on how much supporting evidence and references, whatever, any writer writes - if someone from the Soviet General Staff makes completely unsupported statements, then one would believe them less too! Please be a little more civil. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that when someone from SGS makes statements, they do lead to Central MOD Archives or references from some other place, or memoirs of someone, or they explain rationale. Ultimately statements are traceable to a source. So far I have not seen one source that corroborates the assumption that post-1947 Indian and Pakistani units and formations continued pre-1947 lineages. All I see are statements made by mostly former generals in both Armies which are never referenced to any of their armed forces files, or archives or even other people responsible for this process. Moreover, I have never seen similar statements from British generals although some ended up being regimental honorary colonels of Indian and Pakistani regiments AFTER 1947. What I said was not uncivil, but true. It seems you have something to learn about global publishing business and cultural impacts on the industry. A general, or for that matter any prominent figure in either Pakistan or India can publish almost anything, and it will be taken for "gospel truth" there although no editor in an English speaking country would allow it to be published. Its just a fact of different cultures. This is why Oxford University Press has a separate office in New Delhi. However, if you disagree, go and find a proof to the contrary. I will try and get a book on Masservy from a regional library in the near future, so may learn something from that.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

However, these two sources from GoogleBooks suggest emphasis on tradition and not linage, which are different concepts as I'm sure you will agree.

• "British Indian military traditions were maintained not because they were British, but because they were the Army's, and the Indian Army continued..." - World Armies - Page 303 by John Keegan

• "... the continuity of tradition in an army was essential and the Indian Army was built on the British model" - Asian Recorder - Page 910 1955

In any case, I have not actually seen any sources other then websites. Can I actually get an English language published work with a page reference at least?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is incumbent upon a person making highly contentious, disputed claims on legality seemingly inconsistent with the established position to substantiate with secondary sources, for were it demonstrated it would require extensive restructuring of articles on Indian and Pakistani units. That lineage is claimed is not disputed and you yourself are no longer contesting that. What you are claiming about legal status has not been substantiated with secondary sources. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The continuation of tradition logically would entail the perpetuation of unit lineage. SoLando (Talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tradition and lineage are separate concepts. Many different units may share traditions, but not have the same lineage. I doubt short of archival material I will find secondary sources. However I would have thought that the way this division name was written in its first CO's service record stood for something--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. British/Commonwealth style regiments are immensely complex entities, often fervently protective of their identity. It was inevitable that, irrespective of political change and national transition, those identities would continue to be perpetuated. If those primary sources stated explicitly (in the stricted definition of that word) that lineage was no longer legally continued, consensus could be etsbalished to accept those sources. But if those sources are only suggestive, only interpretive and theoretical, it is inconceivable that they would be accepted as legitimate. Again, I sympathise. I've been in similar situations. Verifiability has precedence here, not what a person believes is "true". It's a subjective term and on the internet, especially here on Wikipedia, it is a word that is invariably hijacked by people pushing minority theories. That's just one of the reasons why verifiability is so intrinsic to the project. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Retired Brig Noor Hussein was Jinnah's Military Secretary and thus privy to a lot of the happenings esp wrt to the transfer. He is far more reliable than Mrg3105's spurious, far fetched and misguided interpretation of the Indian Independence Act 1947 (IIA 1947). None of the other editors have found any support in the IIA 1947 for his proposition or his interpretation. We have several sources, independent, diverse which say that this formation was the only one transfered to the Pakistan Army, and Mrg3105 holds them in contempt, he has dismissed them as being unworthy or wrong or that they are "perpetutating myths". Brig Noor Hussein's piece is waved away by a statement, "in Pakistan Generals can write whatever they want, as we all know." The purpose of this is not to "put down" mrg3105, but to display why his claims should be ignored and this article not held hostage to the whims of one editor. 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this formation is the only one of its type for which the claim is made by Pakistan. If they wanted to "perpetuate myths" then no doubt they would have done this when creating other divisions with the same ordinal number as British Indian Army divisions and "passed them off" as Mrg3105 seems to insist they are doing, after all this is Pakistan and generals can write whatever they want! So why not the 8th Division, which was created a few months after independance? Or the 17th? There were Indian Army divisions with that number? Why stop at this one only? The simple reason for that was since 8 and 17 were not British Indian Army Divisions which were transferd rather they were new raisings with no linkage to the British Divisions except the name.

And some more "myths" for our consumption regarding lineage. The lineage of the Punjab Regt of Pakistan from, the time of their rasing to 1957 when all the present Punjab Regiments were consolidated into one regiment (the 8th formed the new Baloch regt).

http://orbat.com/site/history/open1/pakistan_punjabregt.html 58.65.163.248 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see the author display not only the present but the prior lineage all the way to the first one.

I concur with your argurments but please moderate your tone. Ok, this AFD is hardly going to qualify as an example of gross incivility but there have been moments that should merit reflection by participants (myself included) on the articulation of their argurments.

Mrg, although I must concede I found this discussion on occassion quite frustrating, I thank you for rekindling what has been a passing interest in the Indian and Pakistani armies (and the pre-partition Army in India). Intriguingly, according to Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991, those battle honours which you may recall me mentioning were considered "repugnant" were apparently never withdrawn "but would continue to be recorded in the Army Lists. Orders for the emblazonment of Second World War and subsequent battle honours, all of which were considered non-repugnant, were soon published separately." The book later states: The report of this Committee was published in 1966 and Army Order 405 listed all the battle honours considered to be `non-repugnant': only thirty-eight pre-1914 awards were so classified"

For Pakistan it notes that "the award of battle honours for the Second World War was the first approved by a President of Pakistan."

Now that may not seem significant but to me the issuing of an Army Order compellingly demonstrates official recognition of lineal continuity and the act of the President of Pakistan is even more definitive. As has been repeatedly requested, unless you can produce secondary sources supporting your contentions vis-á-vis legality, the ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and the claim of lineage termination, or indeed explicit and unambiguous primary sources (i.e. a passage stating "lineage is forthwith terminated" and "lineage claims are illegtimate") I am of the opinion that this discussion has reached its extent until a time when sources contradicting what has been demonstrated to be the established position are produced.

If there isn't a strong prospect of expansion, I'm voting in support of a proposed merge with the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to consolidate the duplicate history. If only someone had access to this book which would undoubtedly be beneficial to the nominated article. SoLando (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your link is even more definative, to quote it. "The Division (in 1952) lives as the 7th Division of the Pakistan ArmyBold text". Sparten (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose to merge into 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan). If the claim is that the division has liniage to The India Army of pre-1947, then the initial formation should be the title of the article, which was 7th Indian Infantry Division, and a section devoted to its renamed status. As I proposed, the name needs to be 7th (Indian) Infantry Division (India Army) to conform with the naming convention. Alternatively the nation-in-brackets can be (Britain). --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • yup ! need not be merged but keep and improve / fix the article . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep, per reasons mentioned above. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep , this very lengthy debate shows how important this article is . it is better to fix it and deletion isn't wise . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Process break

Below is a description of how unit diaries which were used for theatre and battle honours awards during the First World War were kept. The process was the same during the Second World War. I am not aware that copies were made for Indian and Pakistani Armies, so in fact no awards, unit or individual could be granted to post-1947 units based on pre-1947 records. Nor could unit records be used for unit history compilation after 1947.

"Unit Records: War Diaries A soldier's medal records normally only give his regiment or corps. To trace his actual unit, e.g. the battalion in an infantry regiment, the brigade and/or battery in the Royal

Artillery, the company in the Royal Engineers or Army Service Corps, you may need more information from family sources such as letters home, or his pay-book (AB 64) or discharge papers if these have survived in the family. Infantry battalions are normally included in the medal rolls in WO329 but not always on the medal index cards.

Each unit serving in a theatre of operations abroad was required to keep a daily War Diary on a special form, Army Form C 2118. These were normally kept by the unit's adjutant or another junior officer, although for smaller units they were kept by the commanding officer. They were maintained in duplicate, normally written in indelible pencil, and once a month one copy would be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the Base, Rouen. These latter copies have survived and are at Kew in class WO95. The other copies were retained by the unit, and some of these survive in regimental museums.

The stated purpose of keeping a War Diary was to compile a contemporaneous record from which, in due course, the history of the campaign could be written, and indeed the Official History was written with reference to these diaries (as well as other sources). For this reason, and also bearing in mind that it was often compiled late at night, sometimes after a full day's fighting, it contains little information on individual soldiers. The comings and goings of officers (including casualties) are usually recorded individually but it is rare indeed to find other ranks mentioned by name. A notable exception is for gallantry awards, as mentioned above. War Diaries normally begin on the first day of disembarkation so information on the unit's training and service in the UK is only given in rare cases.

The sequence in which WO95 is kept follows the "order of battle." This means that units and formations in France come first, then those in Italy, then those in Gallipoli, and so on through the remaining theatres of operations. Within each theatre, records of General Headquarters (GHQ) and attached units come first, then those of Armies and attached units (France only), then of Corps and attached units, then of Divisions. In the latter case, the divisional HQ diaries come first, then those of divisional troops (i.e. arms other than infantry), then those of each infantry brigade (HQ, four battalions, and usually a machine-gun company and a trench mortar battery). Records of Canadian, Australian, Indian and other overseas formations come after those of the corresponding British corps and divisions within the relevant theatre.

War Diaries of headquarters and units on the Lines of Communication (the rear area behind the fighting troops, as far back as the ports) are shown after those of the divisions in the relevant theatre. These are mainly hospitals and other medical units, the railway service, base depots and workshops, and the offices of the Base Commandants and staff at the ports.

Some War Diaries are incomplete, especially for the period of the German 1918 Spring offensives when some units were completely over-run in a matter of hours, and records of units attached to GHQ, Armies, Corps and the Lines of Communication may also be incomplete or even missing entirely.

British Regiments 1914-18 by Brig E A James (Samson Books, 1978) gives a brief summary of the locations in the UK in which each cavalry regiment and infantry battalion served, and the brigades and divisions to which they belonged thereafter. The movements and major actions in which each division served are listed in Order of Battle of Divisions by Major A F Becke, reprinted in the late 1980s by Sherwood Press, Nottingham (Parts 1 and 2A) and Ray Westlake Military Books of Newport, Gwent (Parts 2B, 3A and 3B). It is possible that your local library might have copies or could get them for you through the inter-library loan service.

Becke also gives details of which units comprised each division at various times, but it may be easier to get this information from the National Archives website by searching or browsing the index to class WO95. Alternatively, if you are already at Kew, the last few files in class WO95, numbers 5467 to 5500, contain detailed and indexed Orders of Battle for each of the theatres of operations, normally at intervals of about one month. A copy of the edition of November 1918 for France has also been published by the Imperial War Museum. These should enable you to trace the formations in which your ancestor fought at various times, which in turn will help to narrow down your search of the rest of the WO95 class index."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, you cannot make these claims without sources, secondary or otherwise. If you actually have to interpret a source because it is only suggestive or theoretical, it is wholly unacceptable to come to a conclusion and present your personal interpretation as fact. You have not presented a single source that has even alluded to your claims via-á-vis legal military ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, lineage termination, etc. If you can't produce a source that literally says, unambigously and explictly, that "lineage has been terminated", "claims to lineage are now invalid", your argurments will lack substance and you are effectively engaged, as has been said, in original research and the propagation of your personal interpretation. Official recognition by the governments of India and Pakistan has been proven abundant. Evidence of British recognition to some degree has also been demonstrated (affiliations; another example from the Light Dragoons). It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate your exceptional contentions without deriding the authority of those sources by dimissing them as products of ignorance and the claims of generals. That is your personal opinion, not fact. Verifiability trumps personal convictions of what is true and untrue.

Indeed, you have not presented sources that have even demonstrated Indian units were integral components of the British Army and that the Indian Army was not a nominally distinct organisation maintained at the expense of the "Indian Empire", regardless of political reality. As I have said, you appear to be interpreting primary sources in the forming of judgement. Here's the Oxford History of the British Army on the disbanding of the predominantly European Auxiliary Force: "There was, however, no place for them in the armies of the two successor states of the British Indian Empire, and with the achievement of independence in 1947 they were disbanded."

In addition, in regard to Kitchener's reform: "To emphasise the homogeneity of the reformed army, the title 'Indian Army', which had previously been applied to all the forces at the disposal of the government of India, and which since 1895 had also been applied to the troops of the former Bengal, Madras, and Bombay armies, was henceforth to be used to denominate the forces recruited and permanently based in India, together with its ex-patriate British officers. The term 'Army in India' was henceforth to be used to mean the whole of the land forces of the Indian Empire, including the 30 per cent provided by the British Army at the Indian taxpayer's expense." SoLando (Talk) 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The above came from the http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/thegreatwar/articles/sourcesofinfo/tracinganancestor.htm

All sources brought from current Indian and Pakistani Armies are also "only suggestive or theoretical". They are unsourced assertions.

Can anyone produce any document source that literally says, unambiguously and explicitly, that "lineage has not been terminated", "claims to lineage are still valid"?

Official recognition by the governments of India and Pakistan is abundant, but unproven since it requires acknowledgement from the UK, which has remained silent to the claims for over 60 years.

Your site http://www.army.mod.uk/ld/affiliations.htm from the Light Dragoons only speaks of affiliations, not lineage! Consider this site http://mod.nic.in/Samachar/nov15-03/html/ch1.htm which lists only British theatre and battle honours gained before 1947. If there was linage, post-1947 honours would also apply, but they do not due to a different political system.

Regimental affiliations are handled by the Light Dragoons Regimental Association Charitaible Trust. Contact Fenham Barracks, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4NP, Tel: 0191 2611046 ext 3140.

Unit lineage is handled by the UK Ministry of Defence.

"not presented sources that have even demonstrated Indian units were integral components of the British Army and that the Indian Army was not a nominally distinct organisation maintained at the expense of the "Indian Empire", regardless of political reality." - You must be kidding! Until 1930s there were no Indian or Pakistani officers. All officers were British, transferred to the India List from other seniority lists administered by the War Office. If you can, go to Kew, UK and you can look it up yourself.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That website says NOTHING to support you. You are no longer disputing that Indian and Pakistani units assert lineage. What you now dispute and have done since your initial claims were disproven is to emphasise your belief that lineage was terminated and that their claims are invalid. What you have not done is support those exceptional claims with sources, vis-á-vis legal ramifications of independence and republic, organisational succession, and lineage termination. Official recognition from the governments of India and Pakistan has been demonstrated - it isn't theoretical and it doesn't require interpretation. The evidence is self-explanatory. Those governments are internationall recognised and authoritative and you cannot dismiss them and devalue the compelling sources. Until you produce evidence to the contrary (unambiguous and explicit with the formulations previously mentioned regarding your claims), we must reflect that recognition which does not appear to have been disputed and/or challenged by the United Kingdom (indeed, it has evidently been recognised to a degree). The official affiliations of the Light Dragoons explicitly recogonises the lineage connecting them to the antecedents of the Indian and Pakistani regiments. Read it. Wikipedia does not deal with hypotheticals and original research; it deals with verifiability and as said that trumps personal convinctions on what you believe is and and isn't true. The lack of indigenous officers is irrelevant. Present your sources that disprove the nominal distinction of the Indian Army from that of the British Army. Present your sources, don't present your personal opinion and theories as fact. Your approach amounts to original research. I really sympathise with you, I do, but I will continue to pursue this until you have satisfied the requests that have been made. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I AM still disputing their claim to lineage. I just don't have the sources you expect of me, but not of the editors who propose the AfD.

Official recognition from the governments of India and Pakistan has NOT been demonstrated. A website, even if representing a state's armed forces is not a form of official policy or record, nor does it claim to be. In fact PakDef Military Consortium (PMC) "Despite the focus on Pakistani military and geo-strategic issues neither PMC, nor www.PakDef.info have anything to do with the Government of Pakistan, its military establishment or any civil agency" [7]

I think you just fail to comprehend the 'transition of government' concept. With the transition of government from that of a Viceroy to that of the Indian Congress the Viceroy's commissions for the Indian officers ended, and they were commissioned anew by the new government. How could this be required for officers, but not for the units they command? It is such a basic concept that seemingly no-on has bothered to document it on the assumption of basic logic and common sense. Consider the following example from business world. One corporation takes over another. After accounting for the assets, and moving the personnel to its payroll, the previous corporation is wound up. It ceases to be a legal entity, all its corporate responsibilities now being those of the post-takeover entity. There is no 'lineage'. On the other hand, if the new corporation retains the previous entity as a corporate member, there is lineage. I.e. A takes over B; B is made nul and void. C takes over D, but D is incorporated into its structure becoming D (C Group); there is lineage. You yourself deal with this in British regimental amalgamations, so you must understand the concept. Regiments A, B and C are amalgamated, becoming regiment D (a, b and c). All pre-1707 regiments have been taken over by the Crown under new parliament and stricken from Order of Battle rolls, the seniority re-enumerated from 1st. While history does record that the personnel of regiment X became those of the 1st regiment, the Warrant under which they were formed as X is no longer legal tender. Officers previously commissioned into regiment X may not serve unless they are commissioned again into the new regiment, requiring new commissions.

"Until you produce evidence to the contrary"? First the originator of this AfD has to bring supporting evidence.

"The official affiliations of the Light Dragoons explicitly recogonises the lineage connecting them to the antecedents of the Indian and Pakistani regiments. Read it."! I suggest you "read it" and the whole site! To quote "In the 1950s and 60s, the regiments continued to see plenty of active service in what was to be the twilight of the British Empire - notably in Malaya and Aden. But the main effort was in the divided Germany as part of BAOR - the British Army of the Rhine." Not a word on India. Where is the lineage?! Why isn't the South Alberta Light Horse claiming lineage based on the alliance? Is this "The Officers of the Light Dragoons today wear the Skinner's Horse turban silk as cummerbunds, whilst their officers carry 13th/18th crops." what you base claims of lineage on?

"we must reflect that recognition which does not appear to have been disputed and/or challenged by the United Kingdom (indeed, it has evidently been recognised to a degree)." In actual fact there has been nothing to dispute because all Indian and Pakistani sources only claim traditions, not lineage. Only the Wikipedia articles claim lineage, but these are not sourced from official records of the Pakistan Government.

I quote from http://www.chowk.com/interacts/13455/1/0/152

"Neither India nor Pakistan take their military history seriously. India, for example, has still to release its war histories for 1965 and 1971, though xeroxed copies were obtained by the Times of India. The histories are so bland as to be next to useless. The history of the 1962 War may not even have been written. Aside from the Ministry of Defense's in-house historians, no one is allowed access to war documents. The same is true of Pakistan. Much of the conduct of Indian and Pakistani battles is by means of verbal orders, and there seems to be no scheme of keeping proper records and notes of conversations and signals. Unsurprisingly, Indian and Pakistani military history becomes an unbroken disaster of "I said - he said" Few of the histories published by retired soldiers would meet the requirement of rigor needed for real history. The more decent writers couch their language in ambigious terms, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings. Those with an axe to grind go after their bete noir, who can do nothing right, while covering up their own errors, to indicate they did nothing wrong. Good research is expensive, and almost without exception no Indian or Pakistani writer, university, or publisher can afford to pay for it. So accounts are written in great part because you happen to run across an officer who was there, or a story told you by the batchmate of the general concerned, who heard it from a staff officer, who was told by someone from the general's staff…and so on. Even the most concietntious writer has trouble getting a fair picture under these cirucmstances, and the best such writers can do is to acknowledge their limitations, and continue. Else we would have no history at all, good or bad." (the writer of this can be contacted by email)

Did you read my citation of official Indian Army publication outlining the process of demobilisation and disbandment? These were conducted under the same set of UK War Office Regulations, the only place lineage can be confirmed from. I provided full source reference, including page numbers. If you have no access to this published work, that is not my problem. You can go to the RUSI library (as I did), and I'm sure they will have a copy.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was alluding to the fact that you apparently no longer dispute they claim lineage (which you originally were, no?). The Light Dragoons descend from many regiments, including the 13th Hussars, and are explicitly perpetuating the affiliations that their predecessors maintained with their pre-partition counterparts (it's self-evident). Your theory on what constitutes and defines lineage is irrelevant, as is your theory (?) on what determines perpetuation and transition - it's complete unverified and would probably remain so even if you continued to use what appears to be original research. The Oxford History of the British Army, Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991, official websites of the Indian and Pakistani armies (another example: [8]), et al, have all provided compelling evidence of official recognition and support of my assertions. Again, until you can produce sources that explictly and unambiguously support your statements on lineage termination, lineage invalidty, legal military ramifications of independence and organisational succession, etc, your resort to primary documents that have a strong emphasis on the hypothetical and theoretical have no application to this discussion. Verifiability trumps personal opinion, theory and interpretation. Please understand that verifiability is intrinsic and pretty much precludes original research which is invariably dependent upon primary documents - documents which do not even appear to allude to your contentions. Wikipedia must reflect what is evidently the official position of the governments of India and Pakistan until a time when you demonstrate evidence to the contrary - which after the elapsing of four-days since my first request I fear won't be realised. You cannot dismiss the authority of sources, official or otherwise, because you believe they are the product of "ignorance" and "myth" or unreliable because of nationality. That is your personal opinion and has no relevance here. Your claims are exceptional and I have found no evidence in Google books, Amazon, etc to support them (and I scoured for hours). They are exceptional claims, contentious and disputed and it is therefore incumbent upon you to substantiate them with exceptional, high quality sources. I can't believe how many times this has been said, which you appear to have utterly disregarded. I respect your position but this won't be resolved if you continue to push your own theories as fact. I am not asserting my position to be fact, unlike you. I am deferring to verifiability on what, until your contentions, proved to be a non-controversial issue (and which I assert remains non-controversial). SoLando (Talk) 01:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On [9] A HISTORY OF THE PAKISTAN ARMY by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY (REVIEWED BY MAJOR A.H AMIN-RETIRED) "On page-96 the author states that 13 Dogra in 4 Indian Mountain Division area captured Bedian but was driven out by 7 Punjab’s counter attack the next day. In reality 13 Dogra never attacked Bedian, nor was Bedian defended by 7 Punjab. Bedian was defended by 7 Baluch and attacked by 17 Rajput. Further Bedian was not attacked by a unit from the 4 Mountain Division but by a unit of 7 Indian Division which failed to capture it in the first place".

Do you do appreciate that you're contradicting your (to be candid) perplexing position on the authority of retired officers and 2) not contexualising this extract. Its significance? SoLando (Talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On the claim that I was insulting to the Pakistani, or Indian generals, here is something from [10] so I am not accused of representing my own POV: "The Pakistan Army is the central institution that runs the country, whether there is a democratic government or not. Militarily, the Pakistan army is well trained and seasoned, adequately armed and excellent at smaller unit combat. At full theater combat Pakistan, like India have developed a mental block. This stems (for both Pakistan and India), perhaps to the fact that the generals are not well trained in their art. Since in British India, the British took the higher positions, there is a deep grained mental block in thinking strategically, and going through with wider plans. The comedy of errors during 1965 is an able testament to this. The 1971 strategy of regional commands was a glaring red light. Further, with the involvement of the Pakistan army in politics and country running, these generals have become corrupt and this has further deteriorated their prowess. The Pakistan Army also breeds linear thinkers. Anybody who has been in close association with the Pakistan Army knows the specific setting they have and the unique manner in which they think. Hierarchy and rank are also very important."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand strategy doesn't really seem reliable (diplomatically speaking) and this has no relevance, IMO. SoLando (Talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, when you reply, divide your text into paragraphs.

Your site provides history of British Artillery in India, not a proof of lineage of artillery units. In fact all it says is "Indian Artillery during independence consisted of Field, Air Defence, Counter Bombardment, Coastal, Air Observation Post branches and was allotted eighteen and half all types of artillery regiments while remaining nine and half units went to Pakistan." Even if these were listed with same designations as those units previously so called before Independence, this still does not prove lineage.

My above quotes illustrate the lack of reliability of sources derived from Pakistan (or India). Also the book by BRIAN CLOUGHLEY recommended as a source uses "7 Indian Division" in the immediate post-Independence period. Clearly it can not be named this because it was no longer belonging to the India Army OOB, but he does not attribute it to the Pakistan Army. This is either sloppy writing, or sloppy editing, or both.

Why do you resist referring to any of the sources I cited?

Why are no published sources cited by the proposers to move the 7th Indian Infantry division to 7th Infantry division (Pakistan)? That can be said to be original research also since there are plenty of published sources for the existence of the former, but none that I'm aware of that propose its conversion into the later outside its constitution in the Pakistani Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The formatting of my responses are at my discretion, as your messages are at your discretion. Please don't misrepresent the Indian Army source. The assertion of inherited lineage is incontrovertable, otherwise they'd just provide a history of the Indian Artillery from 1947. Also, note the cap badge and the flag - both assertions of lineal continuity. What sources have you cited? Your argurments have depended upon original research, hypotheticals and personal theory, and the attempted (but not successful, IMO) undermining of sources produced in this discussion. I never employed Brian Cloughey's history as a source and can make no opinion on the authority of that source. What I have utilised is reliable sources, official and independent. I have not had to resort to original research to support my position - documents that don't actually appear to support you - in apparent contrast to your situation. You must appreciate that your contentions would have a profound impact on the structure of Indian and Pakistani units on Wikipedia. That is why it has been requested that you provide exceptional, high-quality sources for exceptional claims. Before you raised this issue, I had never encountered this suggestion. Therefore, I can only assume it is original research. And the material you have used reinforces that perception. SoLando (Talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs are just easier to read and reply to, and are the accepted way of dividing text in the English language for presenting different ideas within same context. However, your choice.

You are confusing History of armed forces in India (and Pakistan) as a whole, and the official history of the Pakistan Army. These are distinctly different concepts.

Assertions are only incontrovertible when they are based on incontrovertible facts. However, this [11] site by Pakistan Army claims that "Pakistan has one of the world's strongest militaries. Its army has played an integral part of the Pakistan government and politics since its inception. It was created on June 30, 1947 with the division of the British Indian Army and Pakistan received six armoured, eight artillery and eight infantry regiments..." where as in fact the planning of the transfer of the Muslim troops to Pakistan begun on this date, and the division was on the August 15, 1947. So much for record keeping. If you read my sources, you will see I had mentioned this already, and properly referenced.

"note the cap badge and the flag - both assertions of lineal continuity" - have you looked at the cap badges and flags?! For the record, the last Queen's colour was withdrawn from Pakistani units on it becoming a republic. Divisions do not have a Queen;s colour, or regimental badges.

You have to read from the beginning to see the multiple published sources I cited.

Brian Cloughey was suggested by another editor, not yourself.

"What I have utilised is reliable sources, official and independent." - which are?!

Which part of my argument is "original research"?!

"You must appreciate that your contentions would have a profound impact on the structure of Indian and Pakistani units on Wikipedia." - I realise

"why it has been requested that you provide exceptional, high-quality sources for exceptional claims." - I have explained that the only place such sources can be found would be in the War Office records of the UK Ministry of Defence formation operational orders. Since I am in Australia, I am physically unable to comply. However, it seems that no one is able to show records that prove assertions that there is formation lineage between the British India Army and the Armies of the Dominions of (and later republics) India and Pakistan. Instead there is a continued use of unit (regimental and battalion) unofficial histories that use no official sources of any government to assert this extends to the formation lineages.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] break

Mrg, I've scrutinised your contributions to the AFD and identified not a single source that does not appear to be used to facilitate OR or even correspond with your claims, unambigously and explicitly. They are clearly hypothetical, requiring theorising and supposition on your part. Wikipedia is not a platform for that. The only thing I've noticed is that you mentioned the King of England in one of your earlier contributions. Correction, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know, I know, but its a misconception that can still irk many!

Again, you've provided no sources about your claim vis-á-vis Pakistan's standards, and as has been mentioned the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, organisational succession and lineage termination. And that flag is neither a Regimental Colour or Queen's Colour (it would have been a King's Colour, anyway), but the regimental flag of the Regiment of Artillery. This reminds me of your earlier claim about India's standards, which were later proven erroneoeus. The cap badge is for all intents and purposes identical to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, albeit omitting the Royal cipher and other vestiges of imperialism.

These battalion and regimental histories are NOT unofficial. Do not misrepresent sources, please. These are the official websites of the British and Indian Army. There have been an array of independent sources, most prominently The Oxford History of the British Army and Battle Honours of the British Empire and Commonwealth Land Forces 1662-1991. You cannot dismiss the sources of official organisations, of sources in general, just because you believe their positions are the product of "ignorance" and "myth". Personal opinion in this instance has no relevance to the discussion and authority of the sources.

And why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either. They would have to be so explicit, as has been asked of you before. What I am doing here is not to demonstrate legal perpetuation, but providing evidence of official recognition by the armies of India and Pakistan. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, Wikipedia's articles must reflect that evident position and defer to verifiability. Otherwise, as has been said ad nauseum, you'll be engaged in original research and the propagation of original thought, theory, and conjecture. What passages in your sources explicitly supports your position that aren't hypothetical and don't necessitate conjecture and theory on your part? I am not presenting my position as fact, unlike you. Wikipedia defers to verifiability, not personal opinion on what is and isn't true. That's been explained to you before. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Add Lineage Book of British Land Forces 1660-1978 to that list. SoLando (Talk) 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have sufficient faith in the self-moderation of official sources - whether it's the Indian Army, Pakistan Army, or the MoD - to be confident that they are assuredly reliable sources. Does their official status compromise the integrity of these sources? No, of course not. Arguably the opposite. I would naturally have issues using official websites if the subject was controversial, if it was advocating a widely disputed assertion, if it was extremist in nature, or if the information was demonstrated to be patently false. But these sites do not conform to any of that, Lineage does not appear to be widely disputed or controversial. Only you have seemingly taken umbrage. Prove otherwise. Yet more sources: Bengal Cavalry Regiments, 1857-1914, [12]. The sources that have been produced in this discussion do not state that "lineage was terminated", that these regiments were disbanded and their history consigned to, well, history. They note which army the regiment was transferred to, they expound on their lineage, their distinctions, their history and antecedents.

Again, I do not present my arguments as fact. Neither should you. I'm deferring to verifiability and it's been said throughout the debate: verifiability trumps personal opinion and theory; truth is subjective. I weary of repeating this but I feel compelled: you cannot dismiss the authority of sources, their reliability, because of their organisational affiliation, national allegiance, and your personal opinion that they are the products of myth and ignorance - that does not determine the validity of a source. And again: you do appear to be propagating personal theory and supposition, which you evidently based on your personal interpretation of primary documents. Your contentions about the legal military ramifications of independence, republic, organisational succession and lineage termination is devoid of compelling substantiation.

You can observe: "But what of the United Kingdom!" Well, I believe "British recognition" has been indicated to a degree by the aforementioned sources. You yourself note the British Government has been conspicously silent and so arguing from that perspective is utterly hypothetical. Wikipedia doesn't read minds and isn't a crystal ball :-D.

Until evidence has been produced to the contrary - and the standards are high because the claims are so exceptional - these articles should reflect what is seemingly the position of India and Pakistan. I honestly don't believe this can continue to be debated until those sources have been presented. It's self-perpetuating futility. Could anyone calculate the total size of the contributions to this discussion by myself and Mrg? We've spent so many hours repeating ourselves, and neither of us are satisfied, when we could have devoted that available time to building the encyclopedia. SoLando (Talk) 08:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the British Indian Army and the Pakistan Army appear to me to be different organizatons, so I don't see how the nominator's argument applies. --Pixelface (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • i support ur cause Pixelface . Pearll's sun (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface have you even read the peceeding pages?58.65.163.248 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface I think you haven't gone through the whole discussion. --SMS ^Talk 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 has repeated the same arguement time and time again and it has been refuted time and time again. His sources are way off and downright incorrect, defence.pk for instance is not the offical Pakistan Army website, it is a private site owned by a Mr Ahsan Farooqi. And Chowk.com is an internet forum, on Pakistan not an official site, and its assertion about there being no record of military history of the Indo-Pak wars is rubbished by the plethora of official and private recollections that have been published. About the one battle of the 65 war for instance (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-141706141.html), or the published war diaries of all units divisons and battalions of Pakistan. Here is an excerpt from (Pak)1 Armoured Division's published account of the '65 war "THe urgency of the move required the division to ignore all procedure and staff actions normally required for a move and all formations and units moved head to tail in a mad rush". If mrg3105 really wanted o use Pakistani History/sources to use/refute, he could easily have requested them or been told where to find them by Inter-Services Public Relations of the Pak Military (http://www.ispr.gov.pk/) but he seems to have a near pathological dislike for Pakistan, Pakistanis and the Pakistan Army. That is his right. It under wikipedia policy not his right to impose his own personal views on a subject, especially when it contradicts tons of sources which say otherwise.58.65.163.248 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

close this discussion as keep and if possible merge the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to this article .Pearll's sun (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the solution is to change the name of the article from 7th Indian Infantry Division to 7th British Indian Infantry Division or 7th Infantry Division(British Indian Army). --SMS ^Talk 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not hate any army. I am simply opposed to bad history of them.

Secondly, if SoLando will dismiss my sources without once referring to them, is there a point to bringing sources?

Thirdly, although the lineage claim is same issue, for the purpose of this article the regimental systems do not apply because we are talking about a formation.

Lastly, as was pointed out above, finally, what I have been saying is that the India Army, and the Armies of the two Dominions that emerged from it were entirely different organisations. These organisations had entirely different structures, foundations in legislation, Orders of Battle, etc. Although thee two successor organisations chose to retain many accouterments and traditions of the former organisation from which it was derived, they could not be a continuity of each other.

It seems to me the AfD was politically motivated because Pakistan editors may find it hard to to see the 7th Indian Infantry division due to the word Indian in it because they choose to believe this is one and the same as the same numbered division in the current Army, but it is not.

The name 7th Indian Infantry Division is a historical name used in many sources. The only question as far as I'm concerned is what state it belonged to per naming conventions. Is it British because of the British Raj administration and the officers or is it Indian Army because of the actual name of the higher organisation? It seems to me the use of (Indian Army) would duplicate the word Indian in the name, and confuse with the Indian Army of the present day. I therefore would suggest (British Raj) as ts reflects both the political and legislative historiography of the formation.

As for "why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either." - suspicion is all yours because you don't know. However, had you read the sources I referred to, you would be less suspicious.

I have not repeated myself. I ave sown through use of memoirs, bioraphies, official puublications, primary documents, and eyewitness reports that on August 15 1947 the India Army came to an end, politically, legislatively, organisationally, in terms of economic burden on the UK government, in terms of War Office record keeping, socially as a community for British officers, and as an ethnicly mixed force in India. For most historians these would be enough, but you demand operational HQ orders for formation disbandment although not being able to provide any record of transfer of lineage yourself from any source, or even explain how that would have worked despite Regulations too the contrary. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that the discussion on this division and what has been the overriding debate on lineage are technically distinct. But I would not have waded into this AFD had you not been assertively presenting your argurments as fact. Indeed, I would not dismiss the sources you have employed had they actually supported your contentions. You do appear to have based your interpretations on hypothetical documents, personal theory and conjecture for assertions that have proven to be enourmously contentious and disputed, yet not a single source has been provided to even demonstrate a controversy about Indian and Pakistani units asserting lineage. Only you appear to have questioned the legality of lineage without producing sources that have explicitly demonstrated illegetimacy. That is what has been requested - sources that actually state your claims. Identify those historians who correspond with the claims you have presented in this AFD.

When you assert claims about lineage termination, organisational succession, the legal military ramifications of independence and republic, you must present sources that aren't merely hypothetical, that don't require theory and conjecture. Why? Because the claims are so exceptional and the aforementioned approach is at its very essence OR. Sources have demonstrated official recognition from the Governments of India and Pakistan, sources have stated regiments were allocated and transfered - not X was disbanded and its lineage terminated. Until you present sources explictly supporting your contentions, what can actually be debated? Wikipedia reflects verifibiaility and must accurately represent used sources. SoLando (Talk) 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105! I think you have missed my comments above, I nominated this article for Afd as it was an article on division which already have an article on it(I don't want to comment on that because many editors have replied to your this concern). Now I could have redirected it which I didn't because of the article's name. By its name it seemed that it is Indian Army's 7th Infantry Division which is located at Ferozepur and this could be a misleading name. So, this article nomination for Afd wasn't politically motivated as you claimed. --SMS ^Talk 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The Pakistani and Indian formation have no claims to any history of the formations that existed before Independence. Units and formations can not exist without officers, and all officers before August 15, 1947 one way or another were sworn to the Crown in UK, and not to the Indian and Pakistani states. When the oath was invalidated by the Independence, officers were demobilised and units disbanded. What the Indian and Pakistani Armies think they have of history, and the reality are far apart. My problem is that I'm in the wrong country to do this research, and then I would have to have it published before I can use it as a reference in Wikipedia. I think that is a sign of the editorial "quality" that lack of understanding and knowledge perpetuates mythology. The standard application of the term editor includes the ability to research and analyse the subject of editing, not just copy blindly from anything that's handy. So, for the last time: the post-1947 Indian Army never had a 7th Indian Infantry Division, the post-1947 Pakistani Army never had a 7th Indian Infantry Division. There is nothing ambiguous about this unless when the four words in the division's title add to the three in the Pakistani formation's title. I can understand how interpreting the Act may be difficult for those not familiar with the language used in them (all are formulaic), but that is really no excuse to abuse history.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Abuse history? That's undoubtedly your personal opinion and that can never be relevant to determining the veracity of sources. You have repeatedly dismissed the verifiable, the reliably sourced - whether official or independent - because you disagree, because of your personal opinion that they are the product of "myth" and "ignorance". Has anyone dismissed your sources using such a rationale? I hope not. To have personal theory, conjecture, opinion, take precedence above the verifiable in a project such as this is utter fallacy, IMO ;-).

Again, the standards are so high because the claims are so high. Can you demonstrate there is even a controversy about Indian and Pakistani units asserting lineage? Your claims have been dependent, as has been said repeatedly, on primary documents necessitating the hypothetical, theoretical, and conjecture. Sources have not been presented supporting (even suggesting) your claims that have not required that. Until you present sources to the contrary, Wikipedia should reflect the non-controversial, verifiable and evident position of India and Pakistan. If their position was disputed, if it was controversial, there would be verifiable sources demonstrating that. But there does not appear to be. Only you have been in dispute. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.