Talk:Indian Army/Archive 1

message: i think this article seems a little biased...for example, india "seized the opportunity to weaken its long time foe" ...one could as easily say india "acted quickly to aid the displaced citizens of east pakistan and stop the massacres." ...maybe it is just me...
:Well I think it is both ways. For example how many military persons india send in Sudan? of course one can argue about the local factors. But in general opportunity was a great concern too. Then you can see that all of the leadership of Awami League went to calcutta. I have read a lot about this topic but I personally believe opportunity was main reason and 'helping' was pretended reason. but it is very difficult to say in NPOV the 'true intention', but the biggest argument going against it is that this is the only case where India 'helped' by using military power. In Srilanka, in kashmir (when it was governed by Hindu Raja), India never used military to 'help' people. In this article indian attack on jonagarh is also not mentioned. Other things whch are not mentioned in this article that India lost one third of kashmir in 1948. Pakistan army was never engaged in that war. Not that Pakistani Leadership didn't want it, but then English Chief of army refused to obey orders from Jinnah. It was fought by civilians (including Pakistani Tribals of North Waziristan). But I am not editing it because mostly it will be on watch list of Indians who won't like these things to be mentioned. and (in my opinion) this article is not very popular article. So starting an edit or some thing like this won't be such a good Idea. I have started to learn to live with NPOV on wikipedia :-(
:Zain 22:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: let's just take two more examples in the neighbourhood, though Tamils were repressed in Sri Lanka and refugees came to India, India sent the army against the LTTE ( not to mention that the Sri Lankan govt then covertly gave support to the LTTE) But did not attack and change the government in power in Sri Lanka. Refugees was the public posturing, they still continue to come even from Bangladesh, and we are not attacking it. India having two fronts with Pakistan , and reducing it to one front was the strategic reason behind the move. The refugees was the "fig leaf" that allowed the action as India then did posture as a peaceful nation , to the extent that the first Pokhran nuclear explosion was called an explosion for peaceful purposes- whatever that means. Then in Nepal despite all the violence India did not send it's army in to Nepal. Both these examples being in the neighbourhood. The opportunity to cut Pakistan down was too good to resist in 1971.And in hind sight it was a good tactical move- A combined Pakistan would have been a far greater menace for India in the troubled 80's with terrorism in Punjab, J&K, Assam and the Far east. Haphar 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Army intentions in East Pakistan

message: In this article it claims the INA was a predessecor to the modern Indian Army. Besides Bose and a very few students recruits, most of the INA were considered traitors after the war and NOT allowed to serve again in the Indian military or militaries. Thus, while the INA is an offshoot of one of the predessecors, is it truly a predessecor of the MODERN Indian Army? What traditions carried over?
TaylorSAllen 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Indian army's predecessor was the "British Indian Army", as all ranks of the British Indian Army continued to serve in the Indian, Indian Army after 15th August 1947, except those that went over to Pakistan or chose to move back to Britain ( this for the British citizens). Regiments such as Skinner's horse, were started by the British and still continue, Regimental history of many regiments starts from British days, and campaigns celebrated include the British Indian Army campaings ( such as Cassino in Italy in WWII). There is no regiment of the INA origin in the Indian army, formation signs used by the british are still in use for some formations, the ranks are the same ( as well as the spelling and pronounciation). Even training regiments in the Indian Military Academy inlcudes El Alamein and Cassino as company names. If Kadam Kadam badaye jaa has been used, well the Army bands also play Colonel Bogey and The Last Post. In fact the Last post is used at official cremations of soldiers who die in action as well as the unknown soldiers memorial at every evening flag removal ceremonyHaphar 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Phew!! Just finished expanding the 1965 war. Did the 1947-48 one earlier, but will have to return to expand it a little more.  Will get down to the rest later but some help on the 1971 war would be appreciated. And the equipment section does need some expanding and editing too. Could someone...?
--Tigger69 August 21, 2005
:Well it is great work, but is there a page on the 1965 war and aren't you just duplicating that page?  Perhaps if there isn't there ought to be.  If you expand every article by that much this article will be too big.  Do you think that a brief summary and a link to a war specific page would be better? Lao Wai 11:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of Sections

message: Edited the statement on sino-indian war to reflect a neutral POV. The supply line statement is speculation.  India did not mount much of a defense during the 1962 war, mainly because the prime minister of India had gutted the military, so even if China had stretched its supply lines there was no evidence that India could have mounted an attack. Nehru even publicly hinted that he had given up the Northern areas that China had taken, much to the chagrin of the people in those areas.  the people who are trumpeting the supply line argument are mainly on the Indian side.  More balanced statement currently with clarification in text for the reader.Mano1 06:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OOPs, user 206.69 seems to have beat me to the punch. He/she actually did in essence what i would have done but left out the statements on Nehru.Mano1 06:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: compromised on statement

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

message: We should move certain sections of it to other pages.
iafguru 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree that article is becoming too long 

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

message: #Shorten the history section. Move the related material to History of the Indian Army.
#References!! The article is not well citied.
--Incman|वार्ता 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few tips to improve artice  

message: Should the Army's sporting forays be included. Every time in the national games or other games like Hockey etc. the Army sends its team/contingent. Even Athens Silver medallist Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was from the Army. I was wondering if that angle could be added? Idleguy 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: I suggest to remove this section entirely because of its POV title. That these people are war heroes should become apparent from their biographies, not because they are listed in this section. The mention of the words war hero is just as superfluous as the adjective evil is for Hitler. Errabee 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned this section up a little bit. I've changed the header to Recipients of the Param Vir Chakra, which is far more neutral and verifiable. I've removed those soldiers that haven't received this decoration; a listing of war heroes would be original research, as there are no clear guidelines as to who can be called a war hero and who cannot. Errabee 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the change in name, one can add the other medal categories too, ie MVC and VC. Haphar 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Heroes 

message: The procurement section of the document seems to be copied verbatim from a report by IDC. The language is inappropriate for a wikipedia article and contains POV remarks such as the following:
* Yet the needs of the Artillery were neglected in favour of the Armoured units
* These guns saved the day in the Kargil War
* the gun has proved itself to be world class beyond doubt 
* IDC wonders why these were not co-manufactured especially
* IDC learned that the first lot have done well and although they were second hand but well reconditioned
* The Indian Navy is truly excited about this missile and calls it the Russian Tomahawk
The following story should also be deleted or at least heavily edited:
"The converted and refurbished aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov free but with a refit priced at $500 million, which will host a N-010 active phased array fire control and surveillance radar, a 13’ ski ramp and arrestor aircraft recovery system. The decision is far gone and chances of back tracking seem remote but Indian Defence has seen many dramas and media hypes it up. IDC adds: when a senior Air Force officer asked why the nation needs a carrier a young Naval officer said, “Sir you know where Hindon is.” He said of course. He politely asked, “Sir can it move.” and the senior IAF officer said, “don’t be stupid.” Then the junior officer asked, “Sir, do you know where INS Viraat is, and where it will be tomorrow.” The senior officer was furious so the junior said “ Sir, we need the carrier because it is the only airfield that can move and support the Navy,” and that in simple terms is the short answer."
11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procurement 

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

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

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

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

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

message: there are missiles of different missions from an ATGM to a ballistic missile. when everything from rifles to tanks are mentioned in seperate categories and why are all missiles mentioned in a single table?
I am classifying them according to their missions or type.
Tunguska can be classified as SAM System and also as Air defence artillery. because it has both guns n sams. So its better if we have airdefence systems in a seperate section.
: Thank you for your contributions. I would suggest you take is slowly, and make incremental changes to the article. allowing time for other editors to check your additions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why table for only Missiles? 

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

message: Source:
Active Main Battle Tanks - 62 Armoured Regiments
• T-90S: 5 regiments @ 62 tanks each, (310) plus a further 1330 tanks being locally assembled (not completed).
• T-72M1: 35 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (1950) upgrade program in progress - moving very slowly.
• T-55: 10 regiments @ 55 tanks each, (550) with L7/105mm gun + the Vijayanta standard upgrade.
• Vijayanta: 11 regiments @ 72 tanks each, (800+) upgraded with FCS and night fighting equipment.
*The above list excludes the one Arjun Mk.1 armoured regiment.
Reserve/Store MBTs
• T-55: 200 - To be phased out by 2008
• Vijayanta: 1000 - To be phased out by 2008
310+1950+550+800+200+1000=4810
4810+5+12 Arjuns=4827~4830
Anything missing?
Chanakyathegreat 15:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanks 

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

message: :Image:Insas56.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Insas56.jpg

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

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

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

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

message: the article says that the Indian Army has the third largest number of active troops in the world, but the list that is linked to from that statement says the Indian Army has the most active troops. I'm going to assume that the list is correct and change the article. If this is wrong, please revert.--Alhutch 00:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link to the list because the list talks about the total number of armed forces in a country and just the army. The Indian Army is the 3rd largest but the Indian Armed Forces which also includes the Indian Paramilitary is the world's largest. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  active troops number 

message: The image :Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      Image:Pattonb.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:NISHANT UAV Flight.jpg

message: I have edited this article today, mainly changing grammatical mistakes and reframing sentences. I have not changed any factual data here. 
Triviabot (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited 

message: no mention of IPKF and op-pawan ? can we cite sources from bharat rakshak and indian army's website?
:There is an article on the Indian Peace Keeping Force but it is heavily infested by LTTE Sympathisers. Needs work jaiiaf 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: op pawan

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

message: Under the heading Recepients of the Param Veer Chakra, Major Shaitan Singh is wrongly mentioned as Havaldar Shaitan Singh.
Major Shaitan Singh was the CO of C Company, 13 Kumaon Regiment which fought the Chinese army at Rezangla.
Thanks,
Ajit S. Datar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.53.114 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong rank. Please correct. 

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

message: Please note that the Official Indian Army Site has grave errors. It was Skandagupta not Chandragupta Maurya who was much earlier who defeated the Huns. Also A portrait of Maharaja Gulab singh has been referred to as Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
SEE: http://indianarmy.nic.in/Index.aspx?flag=LfcULYFlbeQ=
Bold text  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

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

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

message: Before the post 1962 expansion, both India and Pakistan avoided common numbers: India took 1, 4, 5, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, and 27 Divisions; Pakistan took 6 (later disbanded), 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. After the 1962 War India went ahead to backfill numbers: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 36, 39, 54, 57. Pakistan responded with 6 and 11. After the 1965 War they added 16, 18 and 23. Then in 1971 they added 17 and 33, and as deception formations they raised 36 and 39.
After 1971 India added 16, 18, 31; Pakistan reraised 9, 14, 16 lost in East Pakistan, and added 19. Between 1976 and 1984 India went on to add 21, 22, 28, and 29, Pakistan added 40 and 41. By 2000 Pakistan added 2 (artillery division), India added 40 and 41 Arty Divs.
Pakistan is now supposed to have 25 and 26 Mech Divs, they are actually armd divs and have different numbers. No one I know has been able to figure out why in peacetime they would use deception numbers.  Buckshot06 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Division raising dates

message: In the Devanagari script it is written as Sthalasena with the same spelling in roman. Actually, in Devanagari, the S is neither there nor it is pronounced that way. Thala means land or earth in Sanskrit and Sena means force. I dont know how to change Devanagari Script.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.4.24 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its Thalasena not Sthalasena. 

message: Under the head of the Siachen Conflict (1984) there is this particular line:
" In 2004, Indian Army was spending an estimated US$2 million a day to support its personnel stationed in the region."
     This is a minor piece of wrong information provided. I checked the link provided along with it [citation no. 32] It is the original article which states that the figure is clearly for a month. I suggest it be edited as soon as possible.
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.213.30 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Error  

message: The picture with the title 'Indian Army soldiers arrive in Korea in September 1953 for peacekeeping along the neutral buffer zone' is not a photograph of soldiers at all. It is a photograph of toy/model soldiers. Please remove this.
Akravindran (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: You'll need some evidence that this image is fake besides you just think it does. -Atmoz (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Akravindran, 15 February 2011 

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

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

message: How come Logistical problems are well noted in just about every operation in the history section, but the problems they have today, such as eating expired food http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Indian_army_eating_out-of-date_food_999.html , are skipped over? Hcobb (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Id say go ahead and include it in the article.  — Woe90iWoe90i 13:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logistical problems yesterday, Logistical problems tomorrow, but never Logistical problems today

message: Under the Indian Army Staff and Strength section, there is mention that the Indian Army has 1500+ aircraft. This is obviously a mistake, could somebody please add the appropriate number ? 
Thank you.
Removed any unsourced material from that table. Cheers. TalkWoe90i 09:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Army statistics 

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

message: I had sourced and added the numbers of troops a bit earlier, but it was reverted. Why? I have at least two sources confirming that. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I guess the edit comment in this diff will be self explanatory. The ref u added, i am guessing, talked about the indian military, which is not just the army, but also included the air force, and the navy, hence is a larger figure. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I get it. Thanks for telling. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

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

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

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=93711 http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/with-malice-toward-goodwill/article5176540.ece http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/j-k-ministers-paid-money-to-win-hearts-vk-singh/article1-1126474.aspx. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Gsingh (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060613025308/http://www.acig.org:80/artman/publish/article_321.shtml to http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_321.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927202026/http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138168.php/Ashwamedha-reinforces-importance-of-foot-soldiers to http://www.dailyindia.com/show/138168.php/Ashwamedha-reinforces-importance-of-foot-soldiers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the section is about Indian Army operations against Nizam's forces in Hyderabad not about the reports of committees that states events happened in the aftermath of Operation Polo. While I told you not to give WP:UNDUE weight there and refer to Communal violence during and after the operation section of the main article, while instead of going through my edit summaries, you kept on doing blatant reverts? this is the thing to be written in the Operation Polo (already there), You don't understand?
You also violated WP:3RR (can be seen here: First, Second and THIRD). Thus, I suggest you to do a self-revert and discuss the issue here. And, please make yourself familiar with WP:BRD and how this is done. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @MBlaze Lightning Communal violence committed by both Razkars and Indian soldiers has been included and thus the information in the section has been balanced out. The violence was an integral part of the conflict and is relevant here.
This information was restored by @FreeatlastChitchat who is of the opinion that this information is highly relevant here.
Also if we look at the pages of other armies, including the Pakistan Army page, atrocities committed by them have also been included. So there is no need to make an exemption for this page.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know on what basis you are comparing Indian Army & Pakistan Army articles, and genocide of Bengalis and to this case. Your allegations are based on an single community report, that has it's claims and counter-claims well mentioned in the separate section Communal violence during and after the operation of the main article, so stop giving WP:UNDUE weight to a small section that is only meant to give a brief detail on Indian Army operations against the Nizam's paramilitary forces! If you wanted to add anything else, please do add their in the main article, not here! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110618111041/http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca:80/un/index.htm to http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100830150206/http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca:80/un/index.htm to http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081227204520/http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501050711/story.html to http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501050711/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116123416/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_5-5-2003_pg7_14 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-5-2003_pg7_14
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These links seem useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618081321/http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf to http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140221201324/http://www.un.int/india/india%20&%20un/peacekeeping.pdf to http://www.un.int/india/india%20&%20un/peacekeeping.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912002335/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/pastops.shtml to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/pastops.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205100849/http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3115 to http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3115
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131007164813/http://bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Units/Infantry.html?layout=default to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Units/Infantry.html?layout=default
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121105035922/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19731 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19731
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091218083937/http://www.ptinews.com:80/news/422197_India-to-test-fly-light-combat-helicopters-shortly to http://www.ptinews.com/news/422197_India-to-test-fly-light-combat-helicopters-shortly
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All links seem useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150928032748/http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131212084347/http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645 to http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041206180157/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
*http://web.archive.org/web/20131212084347/http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645 to http://www.defencenews.in/defence-news-internal.asp?get=new&id=1645
*http://web.archive.org/web/20041206180157/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Army/ to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/
*http://web.archive.org/web/20150928032748/http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/western-army-command-conducts-summer-training-exercises/997533.html
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Links #2-3 seem useful; #1 failed (error 302, then 404). Dhtwiki (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928055430/https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm to https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14953.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Link seems useful now. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201062843/http://indianarmy.nic.in/indianarmydoctrine_1.doc to http://indianarmy.nic.in/indianarmydoctrine_1.doc
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160228235732/http://20thcenturybattles.com/2015/02/06/the-british-indian-army-during-the-first-world-war/ to http://20thcenturybattles.com/2015/02/06/the-british-indian-army-during-the-first-world-war/#
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
*Added  tag to http://www.indiatoday.com/itoday/20061211/defence.shtml&SET=T
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070909104627/http://frontierindia.net:80/category/indian-army-news/ to http://frontierindia.net/category/indian-army-news/
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) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All links seem useful. #1 leads to a Windows '97 Word document. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509001243/http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html to http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531179/indo-pakistan_wars.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002011703/http://www.army.mil/media/295176 to http://www.army.mil/media/295176
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi  Please discuss here what you would like to add here. Currently, in my view what you are editing is not mentioned in the sourced provided. It is synthesis and WP:OR on your part. Please discuss your edits here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed further because these things have been mentioned to death on other articles like Kashmir conflict. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the argument for removing the section all good. United States Army doesn't put any controversies for instance, though a lot could be there. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I just wanted to gauge whether users would approve of Pakistani claims on destroying 500 Indian tanks during 1965 war be added on this article? Considering Adamberger80 believes this rule should apply to Pakistan Army page which contains Indian claims of 471 tanks being destroyed should there not be balance? We should also have Pakistani claims plus neutral claims of Pakistani losses why is this so hard to swallow? Hranday8 (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained the logic to you that you cannot compared these two pages. Also, 1965 is a small part of the Indian Army history so you have to give it weight age accordingly. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can compare them as they are both related to that war your excuses hold no water. No double standards should be allowed either add Pakistani sources and claims here or remove Indian sources from the Pakistani page simple. Hranday8 (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has now been resolved with neutral claims on both pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Pakistani claims be added to the 1965 war section? Can Indian users digest balance on both Pakistan and Indian army articles? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203031350/http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=11769 to http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=11769
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Poorly source and not enough to have it's own article. Better off in the main page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You raise a good point and this itself needs to be verified. On the Security Exception issue, just add the exception to your browser. I believe the security certificate of the IA website has expired and they have not renewed it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Samman Guard]] 

message: This page could be improved: there are a number of citation omissions that have not been updated.  Furthermore the research has not been done for many years now on this page as on so many others.  I don't mind doing it myself, but in my experience there are jealousy rules amongst Wikipedians who like to hoard page achiever statistics for themselves, when they should be caring more about the Quality of the webpage.  So many pages also display semi-permanent or permanent dead links.  I could do this; but again the problem seems to be that there is a 'bunfight' to seize ownership of a page.  In particular the table on this page headed Combat Corps needs to be completed so that the Indian Army can be proud of its page at last! 46.208.150.110 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019 

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

message: I think you guys should move the History of the Indian Army since 1947 to a new page.  This article is quite long as it is.
I looked at the Israeli Defense Forces article and then decided to move the History of the Pakistan Army to a new page.
Just a suggestion
:)
User:Mercenary2k 22:47, 13 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)
I agree````
123.201.100.253 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create a new Page for the Indian Army History 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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

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

message: The information about the sub-units of the III Corps needs to be verified.  In
See this edit by a non-confirmed editor awaiting approval.  I think the location spelling change is correct but don't want to edit the article until the issue of the 56th division status as an Infantry division or Mountain division is verified in a reliable source.
Whatever is verified as correct, please check III Corps (India) to make sure it is correct as well.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  III Corps 

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

message: This article has been under WP:Pending changes protection since April 2019.  Typically, the  template is applied to the page at the time the protection is applied.  This was not done.  I've done it now.
If there is a good reason NOT to have this template on the page, fee free to remove it but if you do, put a note here saying what that reason is.  A good reason might be "per a previous discussion at [provide a link to the discussion here]" or "per established practice on similar articles, see [provide evidence here]."  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes template 

message: This had to be added. How can you forget this regiment??? One more thing, can someone help me with the picture? Its too big. 129.127.32.138 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The President's Bodyguard isn't listed in the text, and information on its place as part of the army might be added. I've adjusted the picture size to conform with others, apparently merely by making "thumb" lower case. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Presidents bodyguard

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

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) 03:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Edit 1: Please expand the list in the "services" section to the one based on the more detailed and sourced list in  Women in Indian Armed Forces#Summary table of commission by corps. I have just created that table.
Edit 2: Please pipe Indian Army Dental Corps to the article/draft (click on the redlink). I have just created that article draft. 
Feel free to review/enhance. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Edit 1:  Please be specfic about what you want changed (ie. "X to Y"). Note: I don't think a List of all the Corps in the Indian Military would fit here. P,TO 19104  (talk) (contribs)  20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

text: *Edit 2:  We do not put in links of that direct to drafts in Encylopedia Articles. We only link articles to articles. P,TO 19104  (talk) (contribs)  20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020 

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) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: thumb|Thiyyar Soldiers of The Thiyyar Regiment in The British Indian Army
Can you addd this photo in history section ? 
This is from Thiyyar Regiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.169.10 (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native regiment photo 

message: Hindi is not the national language of India. Just keep the motto in English. 122.164.134.51 (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done like your request at Talk:Indian Air Force. Copied from India: "According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language." Hindi is the/a national language of India - please respect this. --Ferien (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021 

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) 07:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hdhd A39wastaken (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  India has 1.444m active personnel and 2.1m reserve 

message: You hadn't added the Nathu La and Cho La clashes (commonly known as Sino-Indian war of 1967). Can you please let me add that? Kumar Nandish438 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Noticed that there is lack of understanding regarding Hakenkreuz and Swastika being totally different symbols with totally different meaning. Request members to watch video of discussion in the Canadian Parliament to understand the difference between "Swastika" and "Hakenkreuz" and make sure that we call "Hakenkreuz" by its name rather than try to call it by another name. Rollingtanker (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed "swastika" to "Nazi flag" in the caption of an image showing such a flag captured by Indian troops. Does that address your concern with regard to the article? Hakenkreuz ("hooked cross") would refer just to the symbol that is commonly known as a "swastika", and "hakenkreuz flag" would indicate the banner being held up. I would argue that "swastika" is the more common term but also realize the sensitivity at conflating the two on a page dealing with the Indian army. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

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

message: Indian army officer 202.168.85.144 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian army officer 

message: Formatting correction. In the Other ranks subsection of Rank structure, correct the first colspan from 10 to 22, second colspan from 12 to 6, and third colspan from 14 to 8. It is to conform to the correct order Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/India. 117.230.87.26 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: – I've also retitled two of the columns, in accordance with the template. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022