# Talk:Indian Armed Forces

WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject India / History (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human Rights Violations Changed the words 'are guilty of' to 'have been accused of'. Amnesty and HRW are no international military tribunals to pass a judgement and deem them guilty. They have made observations and comments. Their comments while in good faith hold no locus standi to deem the usage of word 'guilty' as accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.31.230 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

## World's largest army

Valid references show (see List of countries by number of troops) that Indian army is the world's third largest army after United States and China. The article should reflect the correct information. Users are requested to investigate it further and If I am wrong, undo my edits. Its also the world fourth strongest military in the world.

## No first use of nuclear weapons

see Nuclear doctrine

"... India has a nuclear no-first-use policy and it is also the only country in the world till date to have such policy."

If you follow the link No first use (also in the article) you wil see, that, aperently (I do not know if it is true or false), qoute: "... The former-Soviet Union, Russia, North Korea, India, and the People's Republic of China have pledged not to initiate the use of nuclear weapons in a conflict ...".

One of these articles must be wrong ...

I'm pretty sure that the person who said that India is the "only" nation to pledge no-first-use policy is incorrect. (Psychoneko 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

yes only india has the no first use policy . thats completely true

I move the Time.COM link to "references". Cause it ONLY mentioned the exact size of pmf but NOT pmf's size being the largest in the world. For example, according to "U.S. Annual Report on the Military Power of PRC, 2005", the size of China's militia, one of the two components of her paramilitary forces[1] , is at lease 10-Million strong. We need accuracy, but not nationalism!

References:

• www.sinodefence.com/army/orbat/reserve.asp
• www.time.com/time/2002/kashmir/militarystats.html

If RV, please quote/cite further sources.--219.78.172.189 07:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

## FA drive

To meet WP:WIAFA, I consider the following necessary:

2. Rename the article to "Indian armed forces" (Q: Why was this moved from "Military of India?")
1. Detailed yet succinct descriptions of the army, navy, air force, etc. Care must be taken to avoid overflow - leave most stuff for the forks.
2. "Challenges" section - what problems, modernisation schemes, purchases of military equipment, training, governance issues?
3. WP:NPOV - no patriotism or nationalism must be expressed in this article.
4. Please take guidance from Kargil War, an FA.

Rama's arrow 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The expansion is the most daunting task, it would be very helpful if most people who voted for this article concentrate on that first. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Large amounts of references, not just to internet sources but also to books and other 'dead-tree' sources would be required. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

## Fixing cut and past move

I will try to fix the cut and past move now. Please hold off on editing this page. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I quit. How_to_fix_cut_and_paste_moves is too complicated. Will visit back later. It's all back to where it was. Please continue. - Ganeshk (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

YHR6TIGHUO

I found many associated mail articles also require upgradation of contents including Strategic Forces Command and Indian Paramilitary Forces. --Bhadani 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

## POV Check

The entire Article, with his numerous remarks about Indias importance, greatness and modern army seems to be a bit out of the picture. The Indian Army may be a force that should not be ignored, but its certainly not comparable to western nations, especially the US or the UK, especially not the Navy (the mentioned Carrier is over 40 years old). This may change in the next centuries, but as of today, this is a bit over the top.

--Kelnor 11:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I would amend your statement, as centuries is a laughable time period to use, especially when global power can shift in a matter of decades, while India's power is not comparable to that of the US today, it is widely agreed that it is a rising power, with its rapidly growing economy.

UK is now a third grade power . to be great power you need to survive nuclear attack , and with its size and population it can't survive even a single bomb . as far as india is concerned with its growing economy , technology it will be among top 3 world power in next 10-12 years from now and not centuries as stated by you with a feeling of inferiority complex . --24.16.136.78 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

India would not stand a chance against the UK. India is too backward. 90.206.170.189 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC) think it is very unlikely India will be one of the 3 great powers. Only the media of India spout that rubbish. Indians are still unable to feed themselves. 90.206.170.189 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment from the guy above is from someone who lives in London UK and is obviously biased. First off, yes the United Kingdom is still 20 years ahead of India in terms of modernisation. However, that in no way gives the UK a clear advantage in war. The Indian Army is comprised of nearly 800,000 personnel. India, itself is nearly 800 times the size of the U.K.

Let's give the U.K. the fact they have more nuclear missiles, and are more strategiv. The U.K. strikes Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore etc... What then? The Indian counter-attack would singlehandedly destroy most of the United Kingdom. Aircraft carriers mean nothing. The Indians have developed the worlds fastest supersonic cruise missile with the russians called Brahmos. Most of the British fleet would take a severe pounding the second it entered the Indian Ocean waters. The fact that the military of the U.K. cannot physically get to India by land shows how limited it is. You think the Iranians, Sri Lankans etc... would allow the U.K. to establish any sort of naval presence at their ports against their ally India? So not only do you have a British Naval fleet that couldn't get close to Indian waters, most British tanks would have to be airlifted there using heavy transport planes. India has already purchased many anti-ballistic missiles from Russia. In fact, India is only the 4th country (behind the U.S., Russia, Israel) to have this capability. Meaning that most British ballistic missiles would be shot down. The british have newer and more modern aircraft. Means nothing when they have to travel such a long distance and above most countries that are "hostile" to the West and are allied with India. The Indian Air Force is modernizing at a rapid pace and is one of the world's largest. There is strength in numbers. I could go more into military tactics, but it's pretty evident to most of the world that the British Empire is finished. It's not even a major world power anymore. Even France could destroy the U.K. now. My advice would be, stop worrying about War and instead worry about what your country will do when Prince Charles and his sons are elected King. Even Pakistan has the ability to win the war against the U.K. Get the mindset that because the U.K. spends so much on military it must be the best out of your head. Most of it goes to pay the over-inflated salaries of soldiers compared to those in India.

If I were to describe the most powerful militaries in the world. I'd put them in 3 grades.

First: ( The United States, Russia) Second:(China (though it should move up by 2012 when it develops it's own carriers), India, Israel, France) Third: (United Kingdom, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Iran)

Stop Boasting Boys, it is not a war, and moreover, Your firing doesn't match with the long tradition in India of tolerence and Shanti. "those who boast are seldom the great", Nehru once said.Samitus mallicus 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitus mallicus (talkcontribs)

First, if this wasn't Wikipedia, i would be slightly offended by your remark that i suffer from an inferiority complex, without even being from the UK or having the slightest interest in these "my-country-is-bigger-than-yours" brawls. Second, as you may have noticed, my request for a POV-Check was discussed and overthrown months ago. Thats fine to me, but i wonder what someone has in his mind when i still contributes to a discussion already solved months ago. Third, i stand also corrected and have to admit that english isn't my primary language, and when speaking of centuries, i was merley refering to decades. Sorry, my fault. Furthermore i advise you to read the articles about great power and super power for the correct definition of the term, because yours seems to be quite wrong. --Kelnor 21:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that most scholars and military leaders from countries like the U.S., U.K., and China, the fact that analysts, people who spend all their time running simulations, etc. see that India is a growing military power would disagree with you, Neither India nor U.K. would be successful at having to travel to each other's countries for an attack, and I won't go into detail because you can research the thousands of pieces that agree with the fact that India is rapidly catching up to the west compared to the speed we in the west are developing tech, therefore in the next decade it is expected India may gain blue water navy and other titles to denote it's sophistication, the technological parity may not exist yet but the Indian army's manpower is important, as advanced as 50 soldiers can be they will never beat a million, at least not without technology to match the exponentially larger troops, Britain is about 20 years ahead of the Indians, and therefore the numbers do start to matter, whether or not you are bias does not matter, the analysis you offered isn't one shared by the 'experts' or the people whose nations use to ensure they understand military capabilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

## Military of India and Pakistan.

Will any body give information about payment to individual in Pakistan and Indian Army? vkvora 06:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

## OMG IA has 6000 MBTs?

The last time i checked IAs ORBAT in BR, it was 2000 T-72s, 500 T-55s, 700 Vickers. even with total 1500 T-90s which would be ultimately in service, figure will not be 6K. --59.162.215.107 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

## The F... -word

In the first sentence you can read different times the F...-Word. Please delete.

## "Military of India" or "Indian Armed Forces"?

The official name for the Military of India is the "Indian Armed Forces", so why is the name of the page Military of India, should I move it? Effer 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done --Incman|वार्ता 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Vandalism

I edited out some vandalism beneath the emblem on the front page.

Someone more qualified than I should probably write something more appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bighark (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

## Table Edit Wars

There is a lot of editing and reverting of statistics in the table in the Strength section. Could we have only clear referenced information added. It would be better to discuss this information here before adding. Thanks. Sniperz11talk|edits 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

## Why were my edits rejected?

i was disappoihted to see my edits to the article on Indian Armed Forces was rejected. Renu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakashrenu (talkcontribs) 06:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you told us which edits you're referring to, since they're not shown in your contributions. It's possible that you may not have saved them correctly. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, please note that this page is for general knowledge questions. The best place to ask this kind of question is the help desk, or the talk page for the article in question. --Richardrj talk email 06:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Prakashrenu, I have left a "welcome box" on your talk page - this has lots of useful links to help you get the most out of Wikipedia - do have a good read through them, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I don't see any recent edits to Indian Armed Forces which were reverted, beyond the one I just did Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

## Image copyright problem with File:Agni-III Republic day.jpg

The image File:Agni-III Republic day.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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

## Alliances?

Do the Indian Armed Forces have any allies or do they generally operate alone? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

India is a member of the Non Aligned Movement and is not party to any mutual defence agreement.(Indo–Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation is NOT similar to the Warsaw Pact. It has however operated on selected short term missions like the Indian Peace Keeping Force mission in Sri Lanka and Operation Cactus in the Maldives.So yes they operate alone on national security missions (Excluding UN peacekeeping duties and training excercises). This is why it is surprising that a website with no clear citations has been referenced in the Overseas Bases article as Iranian has allowed its bases to be used by India to attack Pakistan in case of a war. Here is a link from the Iranian news agency IRNA denying this [2]. Without a credible source, this information should not be included. While there may be a possibility of denying its existence by the parties involved, this article should not include this since there is no tangible proof offered by any neutral credible party either.Abhishekmathur (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes India is no longer part of any alliance. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was the last "alliance" they were in. However, India has "natural alliances" with countries such as Russia, France, and Israel which provide it with arms and information. Also, India also maintains an air force base in one of the former soviet states. It is not an alliance in the strict sense, but they are alliances nonetheless. Much like Pakistan and China do not have an "alliance" but generally work together.

## Indian Armed Forces second or third standing army?

This is to invite the attention of editors regarding the incongruity of this article with the article List of countries by number of troops. This one says India has the second largest Standing army. But by former list, if you are comparing only the Active forces, China and USA are ahead of India. If we take the sum Active + Paramilitary : China and Iran come ahead. Or is it that not all reserve forces of India are inactive in peacetime and does this number add to India's standing army to make India's Forces #2. Arjuncodename024 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I did change the Indian Army from number two to number three because the US Army was a larger force in terms of number of active troops. The only reason I changed it back to second largest because the citation from the Times Online seemed to indicate it was. I think what the Times did was add up Active + Reserve forces though I could be mistaken. If you don't agree with the reasoning however, feel free to reverse my change. Thanks, Vedant (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no agreement or disagreement in this case; I am just confused. I have seen Reliable Sources stating India to be the second largest. As far as i see the sources that are cited in List of countries by number of troops are only as reliable/reputed as the sources that say India is #2. Arjuncodename024 09:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well the citation provided by the Times Online seems to indicate is # 2. That being said, if you find any evidence to the contrary, please change it as you see fit. Vedant (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
When comparing the size of ones military it is normaly done so by number of 'Active' troops, therefore India ranks third largest military force in the world in terms of number of personnel. Recon.Army (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the article, India is the worlds 3rd largest military in terms of personnel, the Times Online article is based on the Indian army, not the entire Indian armed forces. (The word Army being the British/American word for Land Force) (Army = Land Force). As per this (W:RS) source [3] (page 24) the Indian armed forces have 1,325,000 active personnel, which ranks it the 3rd largest military in the world after China (apox 2,350,000) and the USA (apox 1,440,000). Recon.Army (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But the figures are compiled as of 2006 you don't know the figures of 2009 the latest one. So its hard to say whether its 2nd or third.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? Its only a three year gap. Also it is not hard to say whether or not the Indian armed forces are 2nd or 3rd largest. Given the sources the facts state India has the worlds 3rd largest military. We will have to wait for future sources that are released to update the article. But I doubt the Indian armed forces will over take the US in size. Recon.Army (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my dear friend even I believe too, when the next sources shall appear by number Indian forces will overtake American soldiers, no question about it. For now we have to be patience.Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 13:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I said I doubt the Indian armed forces will over take the USA in terms of man-power. Which means I dont think India will over take the USA and become the worlds 2nd largest military. This is the problem when Indian nationalists edit the English speaking wiki, most don't understand English. Recon.Army (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for misunderstanding your point of view. But I still believe that a nation of 1.2 billion people its quite natural, sooner or later it will overtake USA as the 2nd largest standing force on the planet. All we need is the latest source as of 2009. The picture shall be crystal clear.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 05:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my comment towards you not understanding me. I was wrong to do so. If you look at the worlds military forces, they are shrinking, Russia has cut 300,000 troops from 1,350,000 troops in 2006 to only 1,020,000 troops in 2010. Russia is cutting its airforce from 1,200 fighters to around 800 by 2020!!! USA is cuting its Navy surface warships from 110 in 2010 to around 80 in 2020. It is also cutting fighter jets from 2,500 in 2010 to 1,700 - 1,900 by 2020-2030. Europe is cutting forces aswell. Technologhy means militaries become smaller. The more Indias economy develops the better technologhy you will develop and the smaller your armed forces will get. Thats the future of modern warfare. Smaller Hightech military forces. Recon.Army (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah your right technology does help significantly in reducing military forces. I agree with now lets wrap up this issue. A much bigger problem that I'm facing about the Commander-in-chief an IP is constantly editing claiming that President of India is the Commander but as far I know the PM grants most of the decisions in Indian constitution. But he is not agreeing with me What do U think who is the real Commander-in-chief.Thank You--Kkm010 | Talk with me 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The President if Head of State of India (Same as the Queen of the United Kingdom). The head of state is allways the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The PM is head of government and as such the PM will make the decision to go to war or surrender etc but the PM isnt commander-in-chief becuase he is not head of state. Recon.Army (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this information, the IP hoppers is indeed correct.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 15:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

## article is too long

We should reduce the size of article by creating a section called Various other inter-service institutions. Under which we divide them into two section 1. Agencies under MoD i.e. Indian Coast Guard 2. Agencies under MoHA(Ministry of Home Affairs (India)) i.e. all other Paramilitary forces of India except Indian Coast Guard .

OR

We should create section of Army, Navy , Air Force and Coast Guard and mention a new section called Paramilitary forces of India under which mention all detail except Indian Coast Guard. This seems more correct than first one as it divide them into MoD and MoHA(Ministry of Home Affairs (India)). Give your suggestion.

--59.94.128.227 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

## IP's edit on supreme commander

Hi, as far as I can remember from the Social Studies books, President is the Supreme Commander of the Indian Armed Forces. But the source given by the IP doesn't look to me to be good enough. Shovon (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with U. I'm still in dilemma whether PM is Supreme or President. Another big problem is that there are hardly relevant sources about this stuff. But still my view is PM is the ultimate discussion maker and President only sign whether a bill should be pass or not.--Kkm010 | Talk with me 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The President of India is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces as per Article 53 of the Constitution of India. Discussion over. Circumcised (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

## Incorrect

The introductory paragrapgh states India has the third largest armed forces in the world. However the wikipedia link that is given shows it as the second largest.

If you are referring to this page, i find it to lists India as third in the "Active troops" column. What am i missing here?.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

## What is the sense of counting nearly all ancient indian kingdoms ?

Hallo,

I am wondering if it is in any way reasonable to name ancient kingdoms from the dark ages ?

India is not the only nation/culture with a ancient history of warfare. For the history of, say, the italian armed forces the naming of the early stages of the roman army in the early republic would contribute nothing, here it is not different. The article about the egyptian military commendably does not name the age of pharao What-was-his-name, it concentrates on the history of the modern military, and therefor benefits the readers interests. The "India is old and great, look how old and great"-sermons don´t impress, they make the reader feel uneasy about it. So many words which show nothing. Am I wrong stating, that unfortunately many articles about India do not fit the NPOV-Standards ?Carolus.Abraxas (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

## Numbers

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

The above article states that India has the third largest air force in the world. The table is near the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.142.186 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

## resource

The Stories You Missed in 2011: 10 events and trends that were overlooked this year, but may be leading the headlines in 2012. by Joshua E. Keating December 2011 India's Military Buildup, excerpt ...

China's new aircraft carrier -- actually just a refitted Gorbachev-era Soviet model purchased for $20 million from the Russians -- made international headlines when it began sea trials this year, signaling Beijing's growing military ambitions in East Asia. ... India is now the world's largest weapons importer, according to a 2011 report by arms watchdog SIPRI, accounting for 9 percent of the world's international arms transfers -- most from Russia -- between 2006 and 2010. India will spend an estimated$80 billion on military modernization programs by 2015, according to an estimate from the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"... planning to spend almost $45 billion over the next 20 years on 103 new warships, including destroyers and nuclear submarines. By comparison, China's investment over the same period is projected to be around$25 billion for 135 vessels, according to data on both countries from maritime analysis firm AMI International."

Planned expansion, 2011-2030 of South Korea is 128 vessels, with $26.6 billion on new ships. Japan's spending is$18.5 billion, and Australia's $17.7 billion. Also in the Foreign Policy article is Pakistan, Vietnam, and South China Sea. 99.181.131.59 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I see no possible way this story could be used to support something in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC) See Sino-Indian relations, 99.181.131.59. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC) ## Military history of India The Military history section seems to talk only of the Navy. Just a request to make this more balanced. --ashwatha (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC) ## File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion  An image used in this article, File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC) ## Reference for the active personal ? Hi, I was looking for the German wikipedia for a reference that the Military of the United States isn't the 2nd strongest in terms of active men, the infobox here tells me "Active personnel 1,925,000 (ranked 2nd)" which sounds more realistic than the 1,2 - 1,3 million I found in the German wikipedia, but in the list where India should be ranked 2nd, it is 3rd... so anyone got a new reference? I think that India might even try to beat China by menpower. India is poor compared to China, same with wages. I Think the Chinese Army had to raise the payment for their soldiers due to the high inflation and increasing living-standard and gross domestic product. While India still can pay their soldiers maybe 1,000 US-$ a year and give them s place to sleep and food. In China maybe the drafted men can be paid like shit, but the professional soldiers have to be paid at least a bit more like a guy who works at the assembly line!

Sorry for my bad English and the many spelling errors, I'm not from an English speaking country but I am trying to give my best!

Best Regards -- Kilon22 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

## India does have not an annual arms export to Sri lanka

India does not have an annual arms export to Sri lanka, I would suggest reviewing the other countries as well, as far as I'm aware, Indian military complexes is very small to non existent, and mainly import most arms. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A cursory google search has revealed this and a SIPRI database, which ranks India 37th largest arms exporter during 2000-2011, with a total of US$167 million, at constant (1990) prices. So does not seem non-existent. Of course, better sourcing can be done. So as per WP:BRD, i am reverting your changes, and will add a Citation needed tag. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC) According to Template:Infobox national military - imports – optional – the total value of annual military imports by the country. So no list of countries is to be used there. I have replaced the list by cited figures. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I found a contradictory source [[4]], The source you provided seem to be in future tense. They all seemed to worded similarly, perhaps it was a one off news item. Is there any other sources confirming arms export. Eng.Bandara (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Done I have made the desired correction. The earlier links were not specific about military exports, but also included aerospace exports. Thanks for pointing that out :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Cheers, That looks fine to me Eng.Bandara (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ## Request for Comment: Criticism Section I would like to raise several concerns and invite consensus regarding the 'criticism' section in a nation's military page. The section, primarily created and forcibly maintained against current consensus by spa User:Antiochus the Great, seems, to me, to have two problems Meaningful content from this section can be merged with the rest of the article (as I tried to do in this edit but was rudely reverted by the spa user previously mentioned). Before concluding, I would like to point out that "criticism" sections do not generally conform to WP:NPOV per Wikipedia:Criticism. I draw attention to this line in the policy : "If reliable sources - other than the critics themselves..." i.e. not Human Rights Watch or other NGOs.Handyunits (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC) • Merge Criticism Section - Admittedly this is a other stuff exists argument, but I've glanced through a dozen Armed Forces of articles, and can't find one that has a separated criticisms section. On that basis alone, I think I'd be for a merger. @Handyunits - I wouldn't be so quick to say you were "rudely reverted". This is how WP works. You make an edit, if another editor doesn't think it's an improvement, it gets reverted, which should prompt discussion. It's WP:BRD. NickCT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) • Merge to relevant articles - I've no doubt that any organisation that reports criticism of some aspect of India will be accused of having "anti-Indian" bias by someone. Probably politicians in most countries of the world have at some time accused the BBC of bias against them, certainly including many of India's local rivals. The real issue is not whether there has been legitimate criticism (armies of every country will criticised). The question is whether it is appropriate to have a criticism section in this type of article. The German Army has had a few mild complaints raised againsts its conduct during its history, but I see no criticism section there. The same is true of the British army and the United States Army. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Well, in this case, it isn't just the government of some country, but several academics, who have raised issues of bias. Admittedly, the academic sources date back to the cold war days, when India was in the Soviet Camp, and Britain/BBC in the NATO camp, but still. Regardless, I agree with you that any significant criticism can just be merged into other sections, which is what I did before getting reverted.Handyunits (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC) • Merge I support this based on the above comment, and I also agree that the comments about anti-Indian bias in the BBC don't stack up to much of a real argument in favour of the merge though, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC) • Merge to relevant articles, delete from this one The BBC has a long and well documented history of anti India bias and generally, I would not consider it as an RS for anything related to India, Israel, Russia, China, African countries, etc. That apart, it is part of the job for armies to get criticized and hated. I do not think we should have criticism sections in any national armed forces articles, and if we do, we should try to do so for all major armies. I see no respectable reason to heap on the Indian army alone.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC) • Agreed to merge if done properly. For example, Handyunits merged parts of the criticism section dealing with the entire armed forces and placed it under the Indian Army section. The Indian Army does not represent the entire armed forces. Anything can be subjected to criticism, nothing is exempt. An argument can be made that due criticism is the opposite of POV if it is balanced, factual and not done with malicious intent... we have to take the good and the bad togeather. Additionally, the forms of criticism that the Indian Armed forces are faced with are rather unique - I.e, alleged rape, torture and killings of girls and women, high suicide rates, obsolete equipment etc. The later two of these being supported by senior Indian officers. To simply delete or remove such criticism could be seen as not keeping a NPOV. OrangesRyellow, you said "Merge to relevant articles", could you please propose what articles are more relevant than this article which is entirely focused on the Indian Armed Forces?Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC) "Additionally, the forms of criticism that the Indian Armed forces are faced with are rather unique - I.e, alleged rape, torture and killings of girls and women". This statement is beyond ridiculous, and, in civilized conversation, would not warrant even a cursory response. Indian Army is certainly not the only one accused of committing rape. See Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (interestingly, any mention of this in the Military of Pakistan article is absolut verboten; even though far more; hundreds of thousands more actually, Bengali women were raped by Pakistan than Northeasterners allegedly raped by Indian soldiers). The fact that you clearly are very cognizant of this, given your knowledge in this area, and still engage in POV-pushing a clear agenda against India, is very troubling to me.Handyunits (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) • Comment, could we also get some official statements/references from the Indian government or Indian Armed Forces regarding the HRW report and other reports on the alleged humans rights violations of the Indian Armed Forces? Such allegations would be more balanced if accompanied by any official statement from the government or armed forces. I'm going to take a look online and see if I can find anything.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Handyunits, please do not suggest I have an anti-Indian bias... I have a great Interest in modern Indian politics and admire the progress India has made since independence - especially since the 1990s! India is one of the few countries that many of us westerners have a love affair with, its culture, history, friendly people and lets not forget about the food! I agree the Indian Army is certainly not the only one accused of committing human rights violations, but please remember that India is a powerful, influential and respected nation, therefore it will always receive more attention (whether good or bad) as opposed to small and less significant nations like Pakistan. So comparing India with Pakistan is not the best comparison.Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Look here, the issue is not whether someone 'loves' or 'hates' something. The issue here is WP:UNDUE. The wikipedia article should not give undue weight to partisan accusations against the Indian military simply because India is more important than, say, Pakistan. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a political agenda.Handyunits (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) @Antiochus the Great. Pakistan is the 6th most populous nation and has the 8th largest standing army in the world. You seem to have a pretty interesting concept of "insignificant" (that's what you seem to claim about Pakistan). That you want to insert criticism about rape etc. in the article about Indian army but do not think it would be appropriate for the Pakistani army article is clearly indicative of a biased attitude. Please do not blame me if I do not think much of your claim to being a "Westerner" or about your love for India.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) I believe you're right in pointing out the strangeness of the attitude of Antiochus the Great. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Such assertions betray a general ignorance of politics in the United States. There is no such thing as 'left' in mainstream US politics. There is only 'right-wing' and 'less right-wing'. The Washington Post is neoconservative right in the sense that it often advocates social spending in domestic policy issues (like the left is known to do) but maintains a very strong neocolonialist stance with issues of foreign policy. It is certainly no guardian . Handyunits (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Additional comment. Where is the question in this RfC? If it is about the general structure of the section, it does not appear to give undue weight to reliably sourced criticism of the organization. These criticism might be better located on unit pages of the units being criticized but the content is attributed to the source, and it is verified to those reliable source. The section is lower in the article and its position in the article is not prominent. Could it be better summarized, sure (most things can), but should it be deleted? No.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) It most certainly is undue weight in a criticism section in a military article, especially since such sections are generally discouraged and do not exist in any military article on wp.Handyunits (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) OrangesRyellow, so you believe I am an Asian/Pakistani posing as a westerner? ROFL! This is all getting absurd now, according to you: • The BBC criticised the Indian Armed Forces so therefore the BBC must have an anti-Indian bias and cannot be used in the article. • The Washington Post reported negatively on the Indian Armed Forces so therefore the Washington Post must be Neoconservative and cannot be used on the article. • And lastly you want the HRW report deleted from the article because you simply don't like it? This all stinks of POV, and I am concerned as to why you feel everyone has an anti-Indian bias? Also, Pakistan is insignificant on the world stage... population and the size of their armed forces are not the measure of a nation.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Your edits are becoming hysterical and uncivil. Please stop, read WP:CIVIL, and resume contributing constructively. The HRW article is partisan and of questionable reliability (see Criticism of Human Rights Watch) and you know it. In articles specifically pertaining to Human rights in India, it is ok. However, in a military article that is meant to be descriptive, it is highly inappropriate and you know this only too well.Handyunits (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC) • Merge to relevant articles per NickCT, Paul Barlow and nom. This type of articles usually don't have criticism sections (I am yet to encounter one which stands out in this regard). I see no intelligent rationale to single out the Indian army. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Mrt3366 please explain why you feel I have a strange attitude? Also for the record I also agree (as per my comments above) to disband and merge the criticism section. I too feel an entire section devoted to criticism is improper - I only created the criticism section for the lack of a better option at the time when I removed the text from the lead paragraphs. On a side note, I was one of the editors who was involved with the inclusion of India at the Great power article - so any claims suggesting I have an anti-Indian bias are wrong and I personally find offensive. I was also responsible for the overhaul of the India and weapons of mass destruction article and Indias development of a nuclear triad. I have absolutely no interest in Pakistani articles and therefore do not edit them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiochus the Great (talkcontribs) "Your edits are becoming hysterical and uncivil" Says the person who claims I am an Asian/Pakistani posing as a westerner! Says the person who is throwing around accusations and claiming that certain people and organisations have an anti-Indian bias! Really, this discussion is getting childish and rather pointless. I also do not appreciate yours (and others) insults about my ethnic background, bias, or strange attitude. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) A lot of what you are saying seems to be imaginary. For example, you say that Handyunits has claimed that you are an Asian/Pakistani. He/She has not done so. Moreover, in an above post, you have so grossly misrepresented my views, and in so many ways, that I am finding it difficult to explain it all. If you are having difficulty in parsing this little talk page thread, how can you be expected to make sense of numerous sources and help deciding what is/is-not encyclopedic content?OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC) • Proposal: I propose adding a few short sentences to Indian_Armed_Forces#Today, stating: Some have asserted that the Indian military is hobbled by obsolete equipment (cite, cite), lack of adequate ammunition (cite), discipline problems (cite), and inadequate R&D (cite). The Indian military seeks to modernize by (merge with Indian_Armed_Forces#Future_of_the_Indian_Armed_Forces)." The "rape, extrajudicial killings etc" is partisan nonsense and does not belong in a general article on military. This will preserve due weight, keep the relevant content in, and even preemptively address any crystal ball issues in the 'future section'.Handyunits (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC) • Update: I have started a subpage, Talk:Indian Armed Forces/Current, where I have tentatively started implementing the proposal above. All involved editors are welcome to contribute their additions to the subpage. I hope that the subpage will eventually reflect the majority consensus of this RfC, thus justifying the replacement of the three sections in the current revision of the article. It would be very mice if all editors discussed changes to the draft on this talk page, preferably below this post.Handyunits (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Looks good so far, perhaps we should include some sort of run down on current deployments/commitments such as anti-piracy missions, its permanent presence at the Strait of Malacca etc.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Details are already present elsewhere in the article, so I have summarized the salient points into a couple of sentences. All editors are requested to peruse and improve the content as needed, and continue to discuss them in this talk page.Handyunits (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC) It would seem that consensus currently favours this draft. If there are no other issues, then I will implement the change shortly, and initiate closure of this RfC.Handyunits (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC) • Comment Since this is still listed as an RfC, I suggest including a link to a previous version containing that section if you still want comment. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks.Handyunits (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC) ## India has frozen its modernization budget https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Armed_Forces&oldid=598034397&diff=prev "we need more confirmation" - OuroborosCobra Very well, in addition to The Hindu, we have: So can we agree that calling the Indian defense budget "frozen" is charitable? Hcobb (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Not one of your additional sources uses the word "frozen," so no, you've not provided confirmation of a budget freeze. Additionally, your original addition to the article claimed that this followed years of failed equipment replacement purchases. You can't just go an make sweeping claims regarding years of policy and action without proper support for your claims. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) So the term "frozen" is inaccurate and should be avoided. How about using "starvation" instead? http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140217/DEFREG03/302170025/India-Proposes-10-Budget-Increase-3-3-Boost-Procurement “If the failure to spend [US$1.66 billion] in 2012-13 is also taken into account with the falling rupee and diversion of funds, then the picture is a clear starvation of fresh contracts by the government in the last two years and the trend looks the same given the small increase in money for weapons and equipment,” said Mehta.

Hcobb (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

## Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 1, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.18531282246112823, "perplexity": 3187.6775117926286}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 20, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2014-23/segments/1405997869778.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20140722025749-00207-ip-10-33-131-23.ec2.internal.warc.gz"}