Talk:British Indian Army

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

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

message: Just a thought: shouldn't this be renamed Indian Army (United Kingdom) under the new naming policy? Grant | Talk 02:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The problem with this article being British Indian Army is that it has not correlated with the formations and units of the pre-1947 Army. In titling the divisional articles the convention of prefixing with British eg. British 8th Indian Infantry Division has not occurred since the first vote years ago. In fact the usage has has gone terribly wrong with either 8th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom) or 8th Infantry Division (Indian). I would suggest the article be moved to Indian Army (British) to disambiguate from the national Indian Army--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps Indian Army (British Raj) which would match with the wiki article British Raj. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name used in primary sources is (India Army). British Raj was a position occupied by a person.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've been uncomfortable with this for some time. "British Indian Army" is clear enough, but it is not a term that was ever formally used as the name, and we seem to be implying it was. (This is the reason we dropped Nationality Xth Division - pagenames should be proper nouns where possible with disambiguation adjectives in brackets) Indian Army (pre-1947) might be the cleanest term? Shimgray | talk | 12:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was brought to my attention that the official name under which India was admitted to the United Nations before its Independence was the Indian Empire.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After 1857 when the British government took over the administration of the British Indian possessions, they decided that "legally" they did so as a direct replacement of the last Mogul Emperor who they had deposed. Queen Victoria was given the title Empress of India and the land they ruled was known as the Indian Empire until independence. I suppose that the article could be called Imperial Indian Army, if that wouldn't be confused with the Mogul armies. Dabbler (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on the Mughal forces, but they would be (Mughal Empire)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some confusion here. British India was transferred from the administration of the East India Company to the control of the India Office and the government of the Governor-General of India. British India did not include the Indian Princely states, more than 40 per cent of the area of India, many of which had their own military forces. There were "Imperial" bodies which related to the whole of India, but they did not include the Indian Army. As it happens, it was almost twenty years after the departure of the last Mughal emperor that Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India, but even then India itself was only rarely called "the Indian Empire". In any event, we have only just escaped from the invented name of "British Indian Army" - surely better not to invent another! I am happy with "Indian Army", with a suitable qualification, but "1858-1947" isn't the right one - please see the thread below. Xn4 (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name again

message: I suggest that this article deal with the Indian Army (1895-1947) (i.e. from when the Indian Army officially existed until independence), and be titled "Indian Army (1895-1947)", with a separate page (or pages) dealing with the presidency armies, which were separate entities. Since the modern Indian Army is an institutional continuation of the pre-independence army, i think it makes sense to name this page Indian Army and then add dates in brackets. Mesoso2 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with the above, except that we already (luckily) have articles on the Presidency armies, the Bengal Army, the Madras Army and the Bombay Army. The military organization of India was very formal, and it's a mistake to invent an army retrospectively which didn't exist at the time. Also, I'm afraid that some of the text of this article has wandered some way from the facts, failing to match what is revealed from reliable sources in other articles.  Xn4 (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following this discussion, I've now renamed the page Indian Army (1895–1947) and also made some corrections in the text. Xn4 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and content

message: martial race and Punjabinization of Army here are omitted. Any one please add them.Ovsek (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martial Race 

message: After the end of WWII and before partition, there was one more military action, the last action in which Indian troops were sent into action under British command.  I don't remember what it was, specifically, but it would be a good addition to this article.  Anyone know? The Sanity Inspector (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there were at least two campaigns that Indian Army troops were involved in after WWII. They were involved in fighting the Viet Minh in Indochina after the Japanese surrender and before the French reestablished colonial government and similarly in Indonesia against the republican Indonesians partly to protect the interned Europeans held by the Japanese who were being attacked by Indonesians opposed to the possible return of Dutch rule. They also undertook retaliatory attacks in response to the assassination of a senior British officer who had been negotiating with Sukarno. Dabbler (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See here: First Indo-China War.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Command 

message: Hi, I have an old picture of FF Rifle Training Staff from British Indian Army at Small Arms School Sagor India (from 1945-46) Could someone please indicate where I should upload it? My father is also in this picture with a British Colonel and a British Captain.
:See Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard for how to upload images etc. Also you should sign your posts on Talk pages by putting ~~~~ at the end. This automatically puts in a signature block with date and time like this Dabbler (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Uploading pictures

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090909172657/http://orbat.com:80/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116203948/http://indianarmy.nic.in:80/arhist1.htm to http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist1.htm#British%20Era
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://indianarmy.nic.in/arhist1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901003914/http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm to http://defencejournal.com/sept99/martial-races.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am working on a Draft article  Draft:Vijey_Kumar_Ghai , an officer of the British Indian Army who served during WW2. I have disclosed COI on my talk page. I would appreciate any sources of data that keep records of officers who served in the British Indian Army such as him, to corroborate service during WW2. Please feel free to add any such references on that page. 
Since I see discussion on this page about the name of this page, I believe British Indian Army is the accurate description as it was known at the time. 
 WikiCpa (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soldiers of the British Indian Army: Secondary sources of information 

message: Baja244, you have classified the photo of Captain Mit Singh as your 'Own Work'. Is this true or were you trying to bypass wikipedia's copyright restrictions? IronBattalion (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Mit Singh and Copyright 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: From the 'First World War' section:
"...some 50,000 in auxiliary battalions. They felt that any more would jeopardise national security. More than four divisions were eventually sent..."
I accept that almost nobody today understands the concept of a 'nation', but this is gratuitous. The administrators of India in ~1910 were not West Wing-brained and did not think or speak in terms of 'national security'. You could just say 'jeopardise the security of India' or similar, without invoking a hypothetical 'nation' of India that existed during the Raj. 
Incidentally, it's dubious even today to assert that the sovereign state of India constitutes a 'nation'. 73.69.253.197 (talk) 04:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature