Talk:Indian Army during World War II

A fact from Indian Army during World War II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Indian Army during World War II was the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/October.

Wikipedia

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in March 2022.

British Empire Mid‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	World War II task force

Untitled

A couple of sources:

I'm not sure if the 3rd should be included in this list as "The title 3rd Indian division was only given in order to deceive the Japanese." [1] Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The source you are quoting is neither authoritative nor correct. While the structure of the formation was not that of an ordinary division, for organizational purposes it was an Indian Army division which consisted of a set of brigades and divisional troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.201 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title

It is British Indian army,not Indian army,hope there will be reply.Please change this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.33.118 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No such army as the "British" Indian Army ever existed and no reliable source names it as such. That name is invented by Wikipedia as a compromise. The current Indian and Pakistani Armies are successors of the pre-1947 Indian Army. The Indian Army was officered by British and Indians and the soldiers were Indian. Dabbler (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbler is correct--note the titles of these RS: Guy and Boyden, eds. Soldiers of the Raj: The Indian Army 1600–1947 (1997); Barkawi, Tarak. "Culture and Combat in the Colonies: The Indian Army in the Second World War," Journal of Contemporary History 41 (2006): pp 325–55; Ian Sumner, The Indian Army 1914-1947. (2001); Roy, "Military Loyalty in the Colonial Context: A Case Study of the Indian Army during World War II Journal of Military History 2009, Rjensen (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dabbler and Rjensen. British Indian is sometimes used currently to distinguish the army from the present Indian army but has no real place in encyclopaedic entries. By the same token you correctly say "the soldiers were Indian". Not British Indian. Even though the soldiers came from all parts of the sub continent which are not part of today's India. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not from all part of sub-continent,from India with present Pakistan and Bangladesh,Not from Sri Lanka and Myanmar.Ovsek (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"British Indian is sometimes used currently to distinguish the army from the present Indian army" -- that's precisely why the term should be used. And if there is some sort of law against it, at least point out the confusion. Sooku (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For freedom

Who removed the freedom movement section?I request to add this quickly,other wise this article will remain incomplete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.233.33.118 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Names

Is it correct to list these, and other non-British British Army divisions, as [Country-an] NNth [Type] Division? Seems to me I usually see them as NNth [Country-an] Division. Maybe only the few non-infantry units need something different? —wwoods 02:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When reference is made to the units before the independence of India, it should be 1st Indian Division. If made after independence, it should be Indian 1st Division. Because this page is a list of WWII Indian divisions, it should use the former descriptive syntax.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.201 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems to me that

the first thing to do is to request this page be moved to List of Indian Army (British) divisions in WWII?
the second thing to do is to rename the articles as 1st Indian Division (British).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are the names they were known by at the time, very un PC now Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army infobox

The use of the post-Independence flag in the info box seems inappropriate. Is there anyway to edit it to use the British Indian Army flag? Dabbler (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

25-pounder gun image

"This gun fired 24,000 rounds per day". That's 36 shells a second; I'm sure the much-touted metal storm weapon wasn't invented then. I presume that figure relates to a divisional artillery group, or army artillery or something. Context needed. HLGallon (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch I had just copied the text from the picture without doing the math - I did trace the original to the United States. Office of War Information. Could this be war time propaganda !!! --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE: India in the war. Indian soldiers in action before the capture of Keren. This gun hurled approximately 24,000 shells a day. Note the shadow of camouflage on the field gun CALL NUMBER: LC-USE6- D-008633 [P&P] REPRODUCTION NUMBER: LC-USE6-D-008633 (b&w film neg.) MEDIUM: 1 negative : safety ; 5 x 7 inches or smaller. CREATED/PUBLISHED: [between 1940 and 1946] RELATED NAMES: United States. Office of War Information.

Training Divisions / Brigades

I realise this article is very much "Work in Progress", and you may be ready to address this aspect of matters when time allows, but this question appears to be rather ignored by most sources. As the article states, the 14th and 39th Divisions were reorganised as training divisions for the Burma front, but you also mention the 116th and 150th brigade. The wording suggests that the divisions I mentioned were used to give advanced training to recruits reporting from the regimental depots, while the 116th and 150th brigades were used to convert complete units to a jungle role. I may be wrong of course, but it does seem otherwise to be a rather confused training establishment. My sources incidentally are Slim, "Defeat into Victory", pp.193-194, and Alan Jeffreys & Duncan Anderson, "The British Army in the Far East 1941-45", pp.19-20 (one of my derided Osprey "coffee table" sources, but better than most). HLGallon (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

116th Bde was part of 39th Div the other two I can find no parent Div listed. see here [2]

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th Bn The King's Own (Royal Lancaster Regiment) was part of 150th Indian Infantry Brigade from March 43 till the end of the war. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization section needs reformatting

Right now there are chronology subsections as well ones based on type of forces. One suggestion is that a yearly table/list be created and have divisions based on forces. --Vinay84 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

G'day, Surely if this article is about the Indian Army in WW2, the infobox shouldn't include engagements outside that timeframe? Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British Indian Army infobox addresses the Army throughout its history. This article only addresses one small sub-section of the history. The infobox is common to all articles involving the Indian Army during the time frame of its existence. Dabbler (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Army

Since Indian National army had it's origin in British Indian army aka army of British Raj(because prisoners joined Indian National Army),so I think in the see also section it should be added.Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not mentioned that British-Indian army fought against INA also,in Kohima-Imphal war.Ovsek (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Are Sikhs not Indian?Are they separate from Indians?If soldiers are to be called by their religion then other soldiers should be called Hindu soldiers,is it right? Should this picture's soldier be called Hindu soldiers arriving?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Newly-arrived_Indian_troops.jpg Soldiers must not be referred according to their religion,it should be done by their nationality,so they are Indians.Ovsek (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says "Soldiers must not be referred according to their religion"? Please indicate the Wikipedia policy which states this. Soldiers can be referred to by their regiment, arm of service, origin e.g. Highlanders or Londoners within the British army, or any number of other distinctions. The particular image clearly shows soldiers with the external trappings of Sikhs (turbans, beards). There can be no objections to describing them as such. I will restore the original caption. If you choose to revert again, without justification under Wikipedia rules, you will be reported for WP:3RR. HLGallon (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!Oh,OMG!Turbans are part of their religion.They are from Sikh Regiment,was not Sikh Regiment from Indian army?So they why will be not called Indian army?In Iraq-Iran war picture if you see any soldier with long beard will you say them Muslim soldiers instead of mentioning their nationality?If you point out soldiers from Uganda will you say them Black soldiers with out mentioning their nationality?An American can be also black,he has nothing to do with Uganda.

Sikhism is a religion,any one be member of it.And by the way WW2 was not a war of religion,like Crusade so you can differentiate them by their religion.It is very broad idea.

You said soldiers should mentioned by their regiment,or army,that's what I was saying for.Call them soldiers from Indian Sikh Regiment or Indian Sikh soldiers.Your post also does not reply completely.Ovsek (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Ovsek is rather over the top in putting his argument, I tend to agree with him. If you had a picture of a British soldier wearing a crucifix round his neck, should he be identified as a "christian soldier"? I don't think so. There's no rule forbidding a religious description but what is the relevance in this context? The caption should identify which side the soldier in the picture is on. Identifying religion would surely only have a relevance in a religious war. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with calling them "soldiers from the Sikh Regiment", because Sikhs served in separate companies in any of six or more Punjabi regiments, the Frontier Force Regiment (which may have had some all-Sikh battalions), the Frontier Force Rifles and perhaps others I have forgotten about. Furthermore, Sikhs' identities are bound to their religion, so the argument that "religion would only have relevance in a religious war" does not hold water in this instance. HLGallon (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Operation Crusader order of battle, XIII Corps had the 4th Indian Infantry Division under Messervy which included the 7th Indian Infantry Brigade one of whose component battalions was the 4th battalion 11th Sikh Regiment. Dabbler (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caption changed to match the description of the image. We cannot call them a "section" because that is a military term, and we don't know if they are an actual Section (military unit). – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caption also changed to reflect correct name of their parent unit. British Indian Army is only used on Wikipedia to disambiguate from the later post-independence Indian Army. Dabbler (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.Ovsek (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still Sikhs are identified as separate.When Sikhs are mentioned then they are said "Sikh Soldiers from Indian army" and when Hindus are mentioned then they are referred as only "Indian troops"?Ovsek (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

Commonwealth War Graves commission reports 87,032 Indian soldiers killed. Then why here different figure?

--World_War_II_casualties#Commonwealth_military_casualties Ovsek (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Indian Army during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Indian Army during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Army during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080531181050/http://www.gc-database.co.uk:80/recipients/Subramanian.htm to http://www.gc-database.co.uk/recipients/Subramanian.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian Army during World War II. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian Army during World War II. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added link

Added link to Women in World War II Wikipedia page. HISTORYLEARNER2018 (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a stupid heading for the article!

It was not Indian or Pakistani or Benglasdeshi army. It was Brtiish-Indian army and not even the army of the various kingdoms in the subcontinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D187:1A54:BC40:F419:4140:FAC9 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon should read the reliable sources such as Approach To Battle: Training The Indian Army During The Second World War (War and Military Culture in South Asia, 1757-1947) (published 2017) Rjensen (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The colonial bias is shameful !!

I find the article and the responses to talk section comments insensitive and ignorant in the extreme. It starts right up front with the term "volunteer army". Come on, guys. Britain had India by the throat, its nationalist leaders were in jail, and its very white and very British army commanders ordered a colonized, subjugated force to lay down their lives for a tiny island off Europe. Why on Earth would they "volunteer' to do that? Next is the semantics hairsplitting argument that it was the Indian army, not the British Indian army. Again, India was not an independent country; how could there be an Indian army?? It wasn't an army at all. It was the British colonial forces. Calling them the Indian army is like calling the British forces who lost to George Washington patriots.

I don't know if Wikipedia has an appeals process. But whoever is editing this page has clear (whether conscious or not) colonial biases. India was a subjugated state. Stop pretending that it "volunteered" to help the British. Sooku (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to say that it wasn't a volunteer army? Do you have any reliable sources to say that it wasn't called the Indian Army? What we need are reliable sources, not rants. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World war 2 article for students

In WWII German and Russian and other country fights it was very tough fight 103.140.30.160 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]