Talk:Indian Navy

where is the number 7 coming from?

go to http://indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm for a complete list —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrometheusHR (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Don't want to be rude, but where is the number 7 coming from - 7th largest navy? If I remember correctly, in terms of size - there is US, Russia, Japan, England, France/Germany/China, Netherlands, Spain... It depends on how you calculate navy strength -total numerical number of any vessel or projected strength. I don't think anyone has ever made an authoratative list. If you relate it to size of aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines - the true hallmark of a naval power, India slips further as it doesn't really have any functioning aircraft carriers to project naval strength and no true ships to support its aircraft carrier if it did have a functional one. If you can state an actual resource for this number it would be appreciated. I know a lot of you guys who wrote the article are Indians but a little patriotism can only go so far. Oh, the nationmaster website seems to be a mirror of this one.

More than a couple of sources list india at 7th as per navy personnel. Here's one [1]. As per the 2003 list of International Institute for strategic studies, UK India is ranked at 7th. This was obtained in a book that quoted this source. It is much harder to obtain a comparison based on aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines - partly due to lack of sufficient data. If you do have such information, please do go ahead in adding that. Moreover different navies have different goals, with a defensive minded one focussing on submarines more than carriers. So such a comparison would have to be holistic in order to come close to knowing the naval strength. However the encyclopedia may not be the place for discussing naval strength, rather it puts out the naval size and a comparison to make it simple. Hope that helped. Tx Idleguy 04:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

True, by saying 7th largest, we mean 7th largest interms of total personnel. Also see List of aircraft carriers. You'll notice that only UK, US and Russia have more operational aircraft carriers than India. Presently the Indian Navy is constructing 10 frigates and 10 corvettes. Once the project is completed, it's fleet would be the 3rd largest in terms of number of operational frigates and corvettes. Also note that a number of Italian, British, Spanish, Russian and Brazilian naval ships have retired in recent years, decreasing their naval fleet. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 06:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Rearranging the images in the Weapons section

With apologies to User:Deepak gupta: with 6 or more images in a bunch at the same section marker, the result was that eight or so of the [Edit] controls were pushed downwards into a pile at the bottom end of all those images, instead of being where they belong (one at the top of each section). So I rearranged those images. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is solved now. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 21:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Do I change it?

The article links to MARCOS (Indian Marine Commandos) with an e, but all refs to the soldiers call them commandos without the e. Typo? Moriori 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • My typo - please re-name the article Mohnish 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. Cheers. Moriori 22:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

History of the Indian Navy

There might be a flaw in the article. It says: In 1830, the Bombay Marine was renamed Her Majesty's Indian Navy. King William IV ruled the United Kingdom in 1830. Victoria became queen only in 1837. The Bombay Marine was either named His Majesty's Indian Navy in 1830 or it was renamed only later when Victoria came to power. Since I don't know when the name change actually took place I cannot correct it.--Istabraq 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NavyGoa.JPG incorrect

I am pretty sure that the lead ship in that formation is a US Ticonderoga Class CG and not of Indian origin Note the AEGIS Radar panel on the front of the ship. I don’t know how to fix it, but thought I would let you'll know.

---

That is a Tico, you are right. The only navy operating that class of ships is the US Navy.

Ah, seems I was not alone in going "huh"? It's going, going... - Aerobird 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. I found that image in this site. I remember that the article to which the image was associated to, spoke about a naval exercise in Goa. Anyways, its good that my mistake was pointed out. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 07:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Future ships

I took the lengthy information that was added to the "Future Ships" section and moved it (w/out any smoothing...) to the various ship pages. This included creating pages for the new carrier and frigate classes. - Aerobird 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Missiles Section

I did the list missiles operated by navy. Should I give description?

And ATV Project should be moved to a seperate page. writing about all ATV Rumours in Indian Navy Article may not look good

The future aircraft section is updated. ATV is not a rumour. --Chanakyathegreat 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Flag Wiki

Please change the official Indian Navy Ensign on Wiki. It was officially changed in 2001 by the order of the President of India. You can find the new ensigns at http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/naval_ensign.html

Cmdr. BSK, Retd. IN

This was reverted back to the former flag because the difficulty in finding the flag or something like that. In the revision they also added the Lions emblem above the cross.

Chanakyathegreat 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The one in use is the latest one. It was changed in 2004. Here's the link to all the versions on the official site. The above link is outdated. I found this out while answering a question at WP:PINQ :) -- Lost^(talk) 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated the Incidents and Accidents section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

This is in my opinion as important a section as the exercises & future plans section. It gives a brief non-biased write-up of the events.Natobxl 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With five major incidents or accidents with loss of lives and in each instance damage to ships for a navy of this size and importance is reason enough to think about highlighting this on the main page ... or should we create a sub-page for this ? If it can't go here, I'll create a sub page for this. Any comments from anyone ? Natobxl 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article link is more than enough. those interested in accidents will read it. All Navies have accidents and it need mentioning. But did not require writeup taking a section of the page which is utilised in a very restricted manner. Event the section on Adventure is limited by only some major events not adding other major adventure events. Still a lot to be added like the Sangraha EW systems in the Information section. Also please don't mess up things. If you are editing this page then your objective must be to make this article a Featured article. Chanakyathegreat 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the 3 points you made on my discussion page : (1) I have no issue that you change the title. OK with me. (2) There were sailors who were killed and others injured in the explosion aboard the INS MAGAR (refer to the Indian press for info on this incident). (3) My bias is neutral. I'm not interested in the US Navy, French Navy or Royal Navy for the time being. But, in due course it might come onto my todo list. Nevertheless, the spate of accidents and incidents is something that cannot be ignored and has even seen the intervention of the (now former) defense minister and (former) Naval Chief to see that the accident/incident rate goes down. Finally, just for the record, you'll see that from my contribution record I've always had a neutral track-record on contributions without taking sides in any submission. So, your claim on "mess up things'" is useless to comment on. On Wiki all persons (normally) try to contribute positively. So, no point going around with a flame-thrower ... only reflects poorly on oneself. So, if you want cooperation on pages or specific topics I can help within the framework of a consensual discussion for submissions.

• For info you asked on casualties (I was refering to INS Magar explosion) : http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/24/stories/2006022420080100.htm & http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/articles/other/Magar.htm (2 independant sources of info)

Natobxl 14:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to check your contributions to check your nuetrality. I am concerned about only about the article. Here you are adding things just by copying the whole thing from the article. I had at the earlier date when the article on ships of the Indian Navy was created, moved the section (with the link) after correcting it. Accidents do happen in all navies. Hence mention it. If it is the article you have added the article from IE. Fine. Now going and adding a seperate section just for accidents, unseen in any other navies articles seems a bit biased and unwanted for since the same information is already available for the readers throught the newspaper link. Chanakyathegreat 14:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I've entirely done a cut-and-paste job of the info. I used as much of the original wording as possible specifically to remove any bias that might creep into my wording of things. If you want feel free to re-write it. I'm OK with it. Also, If you don't want to create a new section, what/where do you propose to include this ? That is why I thought of a new page so as to keep this IN main page free of main info on the navy. Natobxl 15:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already there in this article as accidents and the article link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_Indian_Navy I am adding a one liner in the IN article and that I think is enough. Proving the link to the newspaper report will be sufficient. Chanakyathegreat 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

This article has failed its good article review under the good article criteria. The review begins with an overview for a quick explanation of why and in which areas the article failed this review, and is then divided into the headings of the good article criteria. In bold is the name of the sub-section which the following comments relate to.

Key Points

Broadly speaking, this article suffers from:

• Point of view. Reading this article from start to finish is like reading an Indian Navy publication, it is very pro-Navy when it should be totally neutral.
• The lack of a good copyedit. Wording is at times clunky and sounds unnatural in English. Spelling errors, syntax errors and clause use errors are commonplace.
• A severe lack of references in some places. Often reads like original research or personal opinion.
• A lack of standardisation of spelling, capitalisation, numbering and currency.

Good article criteria pass/fail:

1. Well Written: Fail
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail
3. Broad in coverage: Marginal pass, but needs a lot more work in the Ships section
4. Stable: Pass
5. Pictures: Pass

Well Written

Lead

• Lead section needs a redesign. Cut out the current references, i.e. tsunami relief and Israel-Lebanon 2006, and focus on establishing the context and why this subject is notable.

History

• "After fired upon by Portuguese troops on commercial vessels and fishing boats passing near Anjadip island, decision was taken to militarily intervene to liberate Goa from Portuguese colonial holding." - Needs copyediting
• "Two notable naval chiefs Kanhoji Angre and Kunjali Marakkar were considered one of India's finest warriors" - does not make sense.
• The campaign led by the Indian Navy was known as Operation Cactus - this is the only operation in italics
• This was the part of various opertions like 'Operation Madath' in the Indian - sp. Also, the operations were part of the overall relief effort, not the overall relief effort was part of the operations.
• Also Indian Naval group was able to start the rescue operations in neighbouring countries within 12 hours from the time of the tsunami and was the first foreign navy to reach them. - needs an article, 'the' or 'an'
• Whole of that paragraph below the losses table has "The Indian Navy" written too often, which makes it clunky to read.

Personnel

• It says in the list that Admiral of the Fleet exists, then at the bottom it says it does not. This is very misleading
• There is nothing about actual personnel. What is the manpower strength of the Indian Navy? Does it permit women? If yes, are there any bars on where they can serve?

Structure of the Indian Navy

• "This is the third operational naval base after Mumbai and Vishakapatnam and the first to be controlled exclusively by the Indian Navy. It is being described by naval pundits as the largest such base in the area, Called 'Project Seabird'.[20] It is a multi-billion dollar plan to create an exclusive naval port with full facilities." Merge some of this information, we are currently told the port will be exclusively naval twice.
• "The Indian Navy is setting up a monitoring station in Madagascar, and to patrol the coast of Mozambique to monitor and prevent terrorist activities." 'and to patrol' is confusing. Is there something missing from here? It looks like the passage used to explain a first function of the Madagascar station, and that the Mozambique patrols will be a secondary function.

Fleet Reviews

• "The Presidents fleet reviews took place nine times and the recent one was in the year 12 feb 2006." This is time specific, you should really drop this bit of info and just go with the first ever fleet review. If you really want to keep this in, then change it so that it says "up to 28 November 2006, the fleet has been reviewed nine times". or something similar. Make sure the possessive plural of president has the correct apostrophe, in the example taken from the text, the apostrophe should be after the s.
• "Prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was shown the capabilities of the Indian Navy in a specially organised show" Where was he shown this? MILAN or Bridges of Friendship? Why will someone in 10 years wish to know this? (10 year rule)

Major Exercises

• "KONKAN with Royal Navy" This should probably say "The British Royal Navy" since there are many Royal Navies in the world, especially in South East Asia, meaning that it is very possible that India could have been conducting joint exercises with one of them

Expedition and Adventure

• Just needs copyediting. Like "in May 2004" instead of "on May 2004". Lt Commander Kohli's Everest expedition took place in the past, so needs to read "lead the first..." rather than "leads the first". "Also it became the only Navy to put a submariner in Mt. Everest" On Mt Everest.

Ships

• The bit about accidents looks very out of place in the Ships section, and is unannounced. If someone came to the Indian Navy article looking for info about the accidents, they would not be able to find it easily.

Submarines and UAVs

• "India signed a deal for six Scorpene submarines with MESMA" - explain what MESMA is, jargon must be explained for GA status, most people are not going to know about submarine propulsion!

Aircraft

• Needs an overhaul. Things like consistent capitalisation of Sea King. Also, briefly explain jargon like BVR and AEW rather than just wikilinking

Future Plans

• "4,000 crore" The crore is used only in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is unheardof in the Western world, and since it is not wikilinked or explained I had to look it up seperately of this article. Please either convert this to the standard 40bn or put that in brackets afterwards. Also, wikilink to the crore article and state which currency that is in. This is also inconsistent, since the res of the piece uses standard numbering and US$.
• "There is plans to build more Indigenous aircraft carriers" There are plans...
• "Also, six Kamov-31 attack and reconnaissance anti-submarine helicopters." That is not a stand-alone sentence, it is a subordinate clause. What does it refer to?
• "50 Million USD" Standardise! Choose USD or US$ and stick to it throughout

Factually accurate and verifiable

Role

• Please provide a link or reference to the Indian Maritime Doctrine.

History

• "*PNS Shahjahan was presumably damaged beyond repair." Presumably is not factually accurate or verifiable or, indeed, encyclopaedic
• That whole losses table is unattributed

Structure of the Indian Navy

• "It is being described by naval pundits as the largest such base in the area, Called 'Project Seabird'." The reference given for this passage does not say anything about the base being the largest in the area. Also, do you mean area of India or area as in region? Ambiguity and lack of verification

Nuclear Powered Submarines

• This is a very well written section. However, it has a complete lack of references! This needs to be sorted out.

Submarine Based Missiles

• No references in this section

Future Plans

• Need to state where you got the info about the indigenous aircraft carrier.
• "The ship is likely to be based at Visakhapatnam under the Eastern Naval Command." - Crystal ball! Give a reference or take it out.
• "In 2004, the Ministry of Defence spent US $5.7 billion in arms purchases making India the developing world's leading military buyer." Reference
• "According to some very reliable defense sources" Reference
• "India, is currently focusing on expanding its submarine fleet." Reference. And take out the comma after India.

Towards a true Blue Water Navy

• "The Naval capacity of India already puts it as the most powerful of the Navies off the waters of the Indian Ocean" This is misleading. The reference says "capable", not "powerful". The two are not synonymous.

Neutral Point of View

Role

• Change "our" to "India" to be neutral, and not written from the perspective of an Indian. Either that, or quote the doctrine word for word inside quotation marks and with a reference.

History

• "Two notable naval chiefs Kanhoji Angre and Kunjali Marakkar were considered one of India's finest warriors" Considered by whom?
• "India's stunning victory in the war" POV of a patriotic Indian

Expedition and Adventure

• "The Indian Navy also conducts many other type of expeditions and adventure sports reflecting the resoluteness, determination, courage, mutual trust, teamwork, self-confidence and self – control of the men and women of the Indian Navy." This is pretty cringe worthy to read in an encyclopaedia. All modern armed forces undertake adventurous training to foster these qualities. This reads like you have an agenda to promote the Indian Navy.

Weapon Systems

• "The Indian Navy uses modern technology and weapon systems" That is your point of view, and is not backed up by references. To my mind, this is not true - the Jaguar aircraft and proposals to pick up the Exocet missile are two good examples of outdated technology. Viraat, aged 62, is not modern!

Broad in coverage

Structure of the Indian Navy

• "This is the third operational naval base after Mumbai and Vishakapatnam and the first to be controlled exclusively by the Indian Navy." Who were the others jointly controlled by? Do you mean they were joint civilian-naval ports, or do you mean that other government agencies had part-ownership?

Ships of the Indian Navy

• This section does not relate to its title. How many ships does the Indian Navy have as of today? What is the bulk of the navy made up of? What state are the ships in? Ageing? Are most ships ex-foreign navy ships, made indigenously or made abroad but to original Indian specifications?

Stable

Pass

Pictures

• Captions broadly good.
• The picture of Vikrant needs the bracket after Bangladesh to be closed.
• The picture of the submarine has a bad caption. A sortie is an operational mission, not an exercise. If it really is returning from a sortie, tell us which war.
• The number of fair use pictures is an issue to be sorted out in the long term, but not a bar on GA.

Chrisfow 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lot of improvement in the article from the time of the review. Many of the pointed out corrections have been made. Not trying for another featured article reivew at the moment. Chanakyathegreat 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future Plans : Bias and facts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

In the future plans section I have re-written the part about the IN being the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean. This is factually incorrect as there is ATLEAST one another 'littoral navy' (Royal Australian Navy) with technological equivalence if not superiority. Let me recall that the Collins class submarine with it's AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System from Raytheon (which incidently is also fitted on the SSN Virginia class submarine for the USN) is the most advanced submarine currently deployed by any ASIAN country. Furthermore, there are atleast 2 super-power navies that operate in the Indian Ocean and which maintain massive military bases within the Indian Ocean : USA (out of Diego Garcia) and FRANCE (out of La Réunion). So, it is incorrect to say that the Indian Navy is THE most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean as both these 'blue-water navies' maintain and operate fleets within the Indian Ocean on a permanent basis. Finally, let us not forget that the Chinese too operate within the Indian Ocean ... and they have nuclear submarines with underwater-launched atomic weapons capabilities.

Also, I've removed the section on the Indian Navy operating the ONLY Asian aircraft-carrier. This is incorrect as Thailand operates the HTMS Chakri Nareubet 'aircraft carrier' ... which currently hosts helicopters and Harrier VSTOL planes. Therefore, even if this 'aircraft carrrier' is referred to as a HELICOPTER CARRIER (as are also the British Invincible class warships), it remains that helicopters are 'rotary winged aircraft' and therefore these ships are AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Also see the List of aircraft carriers by country and look-up the website of JANES DEFENSE which places the Thai ship HTMS Chakri Nareubet in the 'aircraft carriers' section. Natobxl 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a correction about your aircraft carrier section. According to inhouse article on the carrier, it states "The ship was largely inactive due to a shortage of funds after the Asian financial crisis." Even China has a non functioning aircraft carrier. Should these be considered as operational? Owning a carrier isn't the same as "operating" so I think that information is right. Idleguy 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

btw, even your first para is more about WP:OR rather than quoting references. The cited source from the US Dept of State clearly states "The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region." If you think otherwise you'll have to back them up with more credible sources than that. Thanks. Idleguy 10:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What about the US Navy & French navy in the Indian Ocean ? How come they've been forgotten to the point that a line saying "India's navy is already the most powerful in the Indian Ocean" is included into this text ? I do agree that the Indian Navy is the most powerful "SOUTH ASIAN" navy. Yes ... Definitely. But, to say that it is the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean is a claim that needs to be substantiated especially in the context of US Navy, French Navy, Royal Australian Navy and PLAN Chinese Navy that also operate within the Indian Ocean.

As for the HTMS Chakri Nareubet being a non-functioning aircraft carrier : Even if the carrier does not currently undertake missions it still retains its operational readiness and availability. This was demonstrated during the December 2004 tsunami when it played a central role in emergency humanitarian missions. Anycase, I am not going to spend my time arguing about this. I am just trying to make the point that Asia encompasses Thailand and that Thailand too has an aircraft carrier on it's 'active ships' inventory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natobxl (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I have reworded to what the source says. Removed the "indian ocean" to "region". Sources mention that Thailand's carrier is hardly active. The Tsunami ops was an exception and to base facts on what a country states as "active" is highly dubious per this source. Still I'll see if it needs any rewording. Idleguy 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Submarines did not make a navy. Having a sub is O.K but saying they are superior is unacceptable. There is no proof to state that the Collins is better than the Kilo class submarines in stealth capability. It is reported that the U.S considered the Kilo class to be the silent subs in the world and NATO calls it the black hole. Let me also remind you that in all exercises carried out with the Indian Navy

News report. "Absent from the exercises, despite persistent U.S. requests, were the Indian Navy's Russian-built Sindhugosh (Kilo class) submarines, also called Type 877 EKM or Black Hole because of their silent operation. Explained an officer: "The Americans did bait us to get one of our Kilo class subs. We did not... . Stealth is the key when it comes to submarines. If they are operated in close proximity, their distinctive underwater and acoustic signatures, emissions... can be made out." The Iranian Navy has three Kilo class vessels and the U.S. is keen to measure the submarine's distinct underwater signatures."

Regarding the Helicopter carrier, the Thai Navy is using it as one. Let them rename it as an aircraft carrier and it can be called a carrier. The reason it is not a carrier is because it is not used like one by the Thai Navy. Until all the sea harriers will be repaired and will be back in service, it cannot be called as an aircraft carrier.

The RAN is a power in its neighbourhood around Fiji, Indonesia and N.Z, beyond which it is just a force that goes along with the U.S navy. Chanakyathegreat 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the whole U.S navy or French Navy operate in the Indian ocean region or limited number of ships and can that be superior to the Indian Navy in its background. If the U.S report says so, then it must be reported as it is, else Idleguy remove the whole sentence, rather than spread ignorance.

Chanakyathegreat 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding PLAN they don't operate beyond their China seas and that with a lot of problems. it is impossible for them to venture out for any adventure out the China sea's because of Taiwan, Japan, U.S and Vietnam. Chanakyathegreat 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

'Blue-water Navy is the aim

The start has already been made, now it's the continuation.

Navy set for war games on foreign shores

Chanakyathegreat 12:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia and Janes Defense for info on US Navy and other US DoD operations out of Diego Garcia. Also check out Google Earth for photos of ships and aircraft operating out of this joint US-UK military base in the INDIAN OCEAN. There are almost every kind of aircraft and support-ships operating out of this base for operatons in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, to say that it is a minor base is plain ignorance of the facts. A quick search on Google or Yahoo brings up more than a few hundred credible and verifiable info sources to back-up my statement on this subject. US Navy has shown that there is not a single point on the globe where it does not operate and also it's force projection and force build-up capacity is next to none. To 'control' any ocean, you need not only a fleet of ships but also superior technology, vast military budget (capable of financing sustained combat or force-projection expeditions) and diplomatic strength. India is NOT YET a 'blue-water navy' capable of controlling the ocean ... so, if the Indian Navy with it's current fleet is deemed superior in terms of technology & logistics to the US Navy's ships (either as a 'Indian Ocean task-force' or just the fleet out of Diego Garcia), that is one of the most surprising claims that I have ever read. Natobxl 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the KILO to COLLINS submarines comparision, I just base my facts on 'technological' superiority. If you are trying to compare 'VIRGINIA class' systems with Russian 'KILO class' systems, I am quite stumped. I think that informed readers will understand me.Natobxl 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding PLAN Navy, with their 'string of pearls' (read Rediff.com and Asia Times articles to this effect) they are effectively choking India by surrounding the country from Myanmar to Pakistan. The Indian Navy is obliged to count on US (atleast financial) support for FENC so as to ensure the security of it's Andamans and Nicobar islands if they come under attack or blocade by a Far-Eastern country (read China).Natobxl 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Government (going by reports in the Indian press during Hu's visit to India last fortnight) was painfully aware that it is a bystander to China's growing power in India's own backyard. It is not only supplying all of India's neighbours with arms but also is considered as a friend by most of them (especially Maldives, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal & Myanmar). So, India is watching helplessly as each of these nations are building military relations (including in some cases leasing out naval bases) with China. IF India did have the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean, the Chinese would think twice before treading on India's toes by creating bases all over the Indian Ocean rim.Natobxl 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Repeat) Helicopters are 'rotary winged' AIRCRAFT and therefore the HTMS Chakri Nareubet is an AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Read the Wiki article on this ship and also JANES DEFENSE to this effect. Therefore, the INS Viraat is not the ONLY Asian aicraft carrier.Natobxl 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My final word on this is going to be that the Indian Navy page is NOT NEUTRAL. We need to really look into this to remove the BIAS and get the quality up to Wiki standards.Natobxl 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Systems is not subs. Good sleeping quaters and shower bath in a sub will not make it superior. It's ability to operate silently to target the enemy is the requirement. Collins may be a good sub, we have not heard anything about it like the news published about the KILOS and GOTLAND subs.

The chinese cannot choke anyone, because they already are chocked by its neighbours. Your imagination of U.S support is far fetched. Let me remind you that it is the U.S Navy that requires the support of the Indian Navy in the Indian ocean. Indeed there will be international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the threat of any kind of attempt to blockade or disrupt maritime traffic in international waters. The FENC is already established and to check the Chinese the IN had already moved into the South China sea. This will be repeated at times when the Chinese enter the Indian ocean. The nations you stated are friendly to India then to anyone else except one nation. That's a threat to the U.S rather than for India, if their base is provided to the Chinese and a threat to the U.S forces based in Pakistan. It is stated by the IN chief that the Chinese are planning ahead of twenty years and the IN is also planning ahead.

Helicopters as you said are rotary winged aircraft but not a fixed wing aircraft. Now rotary winged aircraft carrier must be called rotary winged aircraft carrier and not as an aircraft carrier. Hence Indian navy is the only navy in the region with aircraft carrier. If going by your account that rotary winged aircrafts can be called as aircrafts, then Indian Navy do operate many aircraft carrier like the Delhi class, Rajput class, Brahmaputra class and Godavari class of AC's.

Chanakyathegreat 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Natobxl, pl no WP:OR. Indian media is a bit more forthright in analysing facts, a luxury for the Chinese media, so we'll never read from them the problems that PLAN has in its waters where American and Russian presence pose a serious threat in its own backyard. Pl do not engage in original research and hypothesis in here like "what if" scenarios on an attack in Andamans etc. To launch such an attack atleast one aircraft carrier is required for no sovereign nation will allow attacks from their base, no matter how closely they are allied with China. PLAN has only a museum showpiece of an aircraft carrier and is hardly a blue water navy by any standards. So please disengage from your war games. And I've said this before, sources say that Thai carrier is hardly being used. One source says it's dubious, just like your statements in this issue are. Idleguy 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also read "China and India: Cooperation Or Conflict?" coauthored by Chinese and Indian author, pp 48, which states that india has great influence in Indian Ocean region. Idleguy 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion = debate = free to voice ideas & opinions ... without throwing about the WP:OR boogyman. Am not interested in warring about 'this sub is better than that' and 'any ship with aircraft is an aircraft carrier' kinds of discussions. If JANES DEFENSE journal's ship classifications cannot be believed, I have to admit I am a bit stumped.Natobxl 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Read again what I said at the end of my posting in this 'discussion' page sub-section. I'm ONLY INTERESTED in getting the BIAS out of the Indian Navy article. Am trying to see how best we can get the "our Navy" type of writing (which I guess is a cut-and-paste from some Indian Navy website) to a more neutral and factual article.Natobxl 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the recent involvement of Indian Navy in Gulf of Aden operations against the pirates settled this dispute about the importance of Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Indoresearch (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

The addition of a tag unnecessarily without any reason cannot be justified. If you feel that there is non NPOV, point it out. Since the review to make the article a featured article has made certain observations, I will try to find appropriate links and correct to bring it to a neutral point of view. The article will be totally neutral in its contents. If there is any objections on the it can be raised here. Chanakyathegreat 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bangladesh war in 1971 was a stunning victory for India.[2] Hence reporting it as such, other wise it will violate the NPOV. Chanakyathegreat 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of Navy and Navigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

The word navy originates from Sanskrit word "Nava" meaning boat and the word navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word "Navgath". Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).

This looks suspiciously like an extract from a popular email chain that's been doing the rounds for years now [3], and contains a lot of questionable assertions. This etymology may or may not be true, but it can be cast as doubtful by association with the aforementioned chain mail, and therefore requires a citation to verify its accuracy. --SohanDsouza (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in any case irrelevant to this article. I am removing the entire section. The implication that it is any more related to navigation, from Latin navigare, than any other Indo-European word is nonsense.

India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years. Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).<:ref>Interesting facts about India</ref> <:ref>Maritime trade with the west</ref> <:ref>Indus Valley Civilization</ref> <:ref>Economics of the Indus valley civilization</ref> The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Harappan Civilisation, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms. There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship and also to Matsya yantra, the compass used for navigation.

None of this has anything to do with a Navy, which is the subject of this article; of the four sources listed, one is a set of official nationalist exaggerations; the others say nothing about being first, which is not true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Compass has nothing to do with Navy? Ships has nothing to do with Navy? Varuna has nothing to do with Indian Navy? Harbour has nothing to do with Navy? Side wings of a ship has nothing to do with Navy?

Navy never means destroyers and frigates and the warships that we see today. In earlier times, it was the same ships that was used to travel, carry soldiers to foreign land. And later with advancement in military technology the divisions start to happen with soldiers using faster ships to fight wars. Even In Today's world one can link many similarities with cargo ships with that of warships. Britain even utilised the cargo ships as Merchant aircraft carriers. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Compasses in the Indic Valley Culture are a figment of somebody's imagination; and neither compasses nor any of the rest of this are on topic for the Indian Navy: the armed naval force of an Indian State. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, You are calling me a nationalist without any reason. Providing information with Indian maritime history is not nationalism. It's history. Trying to distort the fact and trying to remove information and facts on the basis of some personal beliefs,opinion and thoughts is nationalism.

Regarding Compass, yes it was used during the fourth and fifth century A.D.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Chanakyathegreat is continuing his campaign to include this irrelevance. Please stop; it has nothing to do with the Indian Navy. If you wish to include it in Navigation in India or some such, please use better sources; one of these is an unreliable puff-piece, which pretends to discuss Indian foreign policy in 100,000 BCE; the others do not support these claims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you fell irritated by historical facts. What has been included in the article is all about Indian Naval history. Certain things may seem very odd. When one talks about Vimana or the flying machines, it must not have existed at that time. I cannot go back and see for myself weather it existed or not. Since it is written in the books we can say that it is there in the book, which is true. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are websites, rarely reliable sources. Three of them do not support what you want to say (they make assertions about what the Indic culture did, but do not say, or suggest, first); the fourth is a bit of patriotic nonsense, which talks about Indian foreign policy since 100,000 BC. And above all, none of this belongs here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have objection, you must exactly state on which sentence you have objection and the specific reasons for that with all the proof (from reliable sources){which you have not done till now} so that I can accept or provide reliable sources to counter those arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Our objections are stated, at some length, above.

You mistake our practice, see WP:V; the burden is on those who would include material. You have presented four sources; all of them are websites, none of any exceptional merit. Three of them do not support the assertions of first; the fourth is nationalist trash. And all of this is still off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have still not provided what I had asked you to do. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I warn you from indulging in edit wars. If you cannot provide the details asked and cannot provide information then you have no right to remove any content. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read your edit screen: If you do not wish your contribution to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. This is policy; see WP:OWN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the merits:

India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years. Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).[5][not in citation given] [6] [7] [8] The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms. There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship. Matsya yantra, the compass was used for navigation in the fourth and fifth century AD.

• None of this belongs here; it may belong in Navigation in India.
• Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus). is not reliably sourced; and violates WP:WEASEL
• The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, is an invention; the only source to mention this says nothing about first.
• Varuna is not history; and Rig Veda has nothing about a navy (and the speculative treatment of a collection of poetry requires a secondary source).
• There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship. Matsya yantra, the compass was used for navigation in the fourth and fifth century AD.
  • This is incoherent, ungrammatical and irrelevant.
• Sea lanes between India and neighbouring lands was the common mode for trade from many centuries, and is responsible for the widespread influence of Indian Culture on other societies, and vice versa.
  • The subject here is Sea lanes. This is a plural and cannot take the singular verbs was and is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Navigation Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A quotation which says: Of the origin of navigation no satisfactory conjecture can be offered, nor do we know to what nation to ascribe the merit of having conferred so important a blessing on mankind. An excellent reason not to ascribe it to the banks of the Indus, or of any other river, especially in an article on something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I removed it from the article. But your argument that the origin of navigation is not in India cannot be explained. There is a greater chance of it being in India but the article says It is impossible to say how the Origin of Navigation happened. Hence until there is proof from sources, that will not be added into the article. But I see no reason for you to remove the remaining content from the article. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My only reasons are that the rest remains entirely irrelevant, partly ungrammatical, and partly unsupported, as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then are you willing to explain your reasoning to the WP:Mediation Cabal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But if the claim of antiquity is enough, without Varuna and other nonsense, you may be content with the present text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed this discussion. If several editors, including User:Chanakyathegreat are willing to discuss and try to come to an agreement, probably involving some form of compromise from both sides, then mediation might be able to help, but editors cannot be forced to participate in mediation and the mediators have no authority to render a binding decision. Would User:Chanakyathegreat be willing to stop adding the disputed material while we discuss this further? An edit war doesn't help anyone. If we could take a step back and hold off adding this content for a few days, maybe other editors would be willing to discuss whether some of User:Chanakyathegreat's material is appropriate. If not, I'm not sure mediation is the answer.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Chanakya has just restored this irrelevance again; I have tagged it for now. Does anyone have credible sources which actually support it? Can anyone explain why it belongs in this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I’ve been invited to contribute a “third opinion” on this issue (albeit not as part of the Mediation Cabal). The “Navy of Foo” articles are generally focused on the naval arm of a given country. Prior to the British taking colonial control of India, the name “India” was more a reference to a region (like “Southeast Asia” or the “Middle East”), and one which was never completely dominated by a single state. It would seem then that this article, the Indian Navy, should focus on the navy of the “modern” country in regards to its colonial and independent periods. It would certainly be fair to include an introductory sentence or two noting that the region has a maritime tradition going back five millennia; however, none of those earlier seafaring states were “India”, per se, in the sense that we now perceive it. Ideally, such a comment in this article would have a link to a separate article – which I don't believe exists yet – providing an overview of the maritime history of the region, but IMHO that is too broad an area of discussion to be encompassed here. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

India was not a reference to a region. But it was used to describe a civilization itself which included the land of this civilization. In reality the word used for Indian nation from ancient times was Bharat. Even today it's used in the Indian constitution. So regarding history one cannot restrict the Indian history to that after independence from British rule. Nation states and the short history of nations suit the western nations and their concepts. It cannot be accommodated in eastern and Indian concepts since it's totally different. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid that I must respectfully disagree, my friend. Yes, bharat is an ancient word, but I’m unaware of any pre-colonial period of time that there was ever one culture that was “India”. Indeed, many of these cultures considered themselves quite distinct and most unlike others in the region (and this lies at the root of the caste system) Even today, there are cultures that have separatist designs for independence of a country and culture which they do not feel a part of. Historically, “India” has been more an equivalent to “Europe” as a geographical meme, not one of a unified culture or state. This is especially the case for Westerners, whose perception of “India” or the “Indies” until after Columbus’ time has historically been pretty much anything that lay to the east of Persia (with a vague differentiation from China).

Yet even if “India” had an ancient and continuing real sense of unity as something akin to but different than the Western sense of “nation”, I would submit that it would be an inappropriate way to relate Indian “nationality” to the average English-speaking reader, since most have a Western perception in the first place. Explaining the difference would be worthwhile in the main article on India, but is out of the scope of an article on the more narrow topic of the Indian navy.

I think my proposal above also makes the total ancient naval history of the Indian subcontinent (or more generally, the South Asian region) more accessible to the average reader. The majority of the “Navy of Foo” articles are focused on the modern navy of Foo, and that makes for a good, “bite-size” encyclopedic article. Indian naval history, though, is so broad a subject – because of its very ancientness and complexity – that it deserves a general, summary style overview article of its own that directs the reader to further, more detailed articles on individual topics. I forget the term that Wikipedia uses for “serializing” a group of related topics, but that would be an excellent task for editors from WP:MILHIST and WP:INDIA to take on. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The one culture is not required to be India. India is difficult to explain. It's not a nation of a single race, culture tradition etc. It's the land with a mix of culture, tradition, religion etc. It's a civilization. Your saying is correct that it's somewhat like Europe, but is totally different from Europe. Who says that for a nation to exist, the people in that nation must have only one culture and the existence of India debunks the theory of different culture, means different nation.

The caste system is not based on region. It's based on the job one does. It's not religious but is unique to Indian subcontinent. You said that there are separatist issues and they don't feel part of Indian culture. What is this Indian culture. It is an inclusion of all cultures in India. It includes the culture from every part of the Indian nation. So the objective of the separatist organizations will become more political and the struggle to acquire power to rule the people through the use of force. It's not western perception that matters but the reality.

Regarding the Naval article, the historical part is only a very small section. So I don't think that anyone should be offended by seeing it there. Because there is no reason for anyone to find it offensive since it's not target at any particular person or nation or anything else. That small section is informative as well. Hence it must continue to be there since its part of Indian naval history and it causes no harm to anyone and is very informative.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any relevant text that can be cited with references should be acceptable. I don't see why it should be cited and widely agreed in "western" world to be correct. Brief about the history of Indian Navy if it can be cited has every reason to exist and need not necessarily be considered 'Nationalistic'. By the way nationalism is not considered a bad word in India because in India nationalism is not divisionary in the right wing left wing sense, it is actually a concept that means accepting differences that make India.

Sure name India is derived from a name given by the Greeks but that in itself is derived from the name given by Persians. Sindhu became Hindu in Persian and the 'H' in Hindu became 'I' in Greek pronunciations. That's how river Indus got its English name. That’s how Hindus got the name for their religion and for themselves. There was never any doubt in history on what region is India. One can refer to history books by western authors like John Key to refresh this information. Assertions that English is known and spoke in western world is perhaps coming from a perception that needs correction. The modern day reality is that English speaking world is not necessarily a western world. So the audience of WP:EN articles need not be limited to western perceptions of reality. British were not the first to administer the whole of India or to unite it as such. This perception itself is incorrect. The British ruled by dividing India not really by uniting it. There were many ancient empires in India that had influence on a large landmass from Afghanistan in the west to Bengal in the east. Mauryan Empire was contemporary to Greeks after Alexander and administered much of India. The bottom line is that British were not the first to give India an Army, Navy or a pan-Indian administration, and they certainly did not give India its culture. In fact the reason why the British had to leave while every other visitor, invader, ruler or settler stayed because while others were able to mingle into the 'Indian' culture the British failed to do so and remained outsiders in the 200 years of their presence in the subcontinent. I have no hard feelings for the British though. And they gave India it Air Force and its Railways; nobody is making assertions about pre-colonial existence of these organizations. History of Navy and Army in India of course is differentIndoresearch (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources needed

Per WP:CITE#When to cite sources, all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. In conclusion, for further addition of controversial/challenged content, editors are kindly asked to post sources. Any future edit warrings on this issue will be considered disruptive and reported accordingly. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help - Aircraft of the Indian Navy

Hi - The article on Aircraft of the Indian Navy needs help. The material in there is slim, and this article is listed on the Military History Project as needing more work. Things you can do to help:

• Anyone with original pictures of aircraft, choppers, aircraft carriers or UAVs should please upload them to the [Wikimedia Commons], and link to them from within the article. Please do not re-use pictures you downloaded off the web, or they will be put up for deletion by the wiki community.

• Please help add and beef up a section on the Navy choppers. The section on history could also use more meat - What'd these guys achieve during all our wars.

• Absolutely anything else you can do to bring out the dashing traditions of Indian naval aviation. This article majorly under-sells the reality of this proud wing of our Navy in it's current form.

Thanks!

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I would also like to add that the reference to Tu22M being used by the Indian Navy is not substantiated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New article in The Economist about Asian navies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

Interesting. Among other info, claims Indian Navy has three aircraft carriers under contract (pp. 53 of the US print version, 7 Juen 2008). Also in online form at The Economist online. Might be a good source. N2e (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is one in service. One (former Gorshkov) INS Vikramaditya is under refit in Russia. This is expected to enter service by 2012. Another one is under construction in India (Vikrant class aircraft carriers) followed by another one. When the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant are commissioned, the INS Viraat will be decommissioned. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image copyright problem with Image:Lothal conception.jpg

The image Image:Lothal conception.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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.... please check and verify. Thanks. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong spelling of motto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

---

The Indian Navy's motto is "Sham No Varunah" not "Sha No Varuna" as written in this artcle. I'm finding no way of correcting it, can somoebosy do it? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Indian Navy website[4] it's "The Naval Crest consists of the Ashoka emblem, a foul anchor and a shield, and its navy blue colour. Below the crest is the motto of the Service- 'Shano Varuna' - meaning 'May the Lord of the Oceans be Auspicious Unto Us'".Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the folks who built the Indian Navy's web site need to brush up on their Sanskrit. The motto is pronounced "Sham no Varunaha" (the 'a' of 'Sham' pronounced like the 'u' in 'up'). That would be a more accurate transliteration of the motto. It will be good if someone can correct it.-unknown user

Yes only if the Navy corrects it in their website, we can change it in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I've just found some info on Quarterdeck 2004, the Navy's official annual magazine, including a letter by the late Adm. Barboza, who uses the spelling "Sham no varunah". Incidentally, this motto was given by the late C. Rajagopalachari, based on a request in a letter from an english admiral of the Indian Navy (English officers continued to serve for a short period after the IN was formed). I've forgotten the name of the officer and which Upanishad this was sourced from (I think it is the Taittriya Upanishad, but not sure), but I'll try and find it.... however, the proper transliteration is as I pointed out just above. The basic point is that we should probably trust the Navy when it talks Naval stuff, but when it comes to the sanskrit spelling and other similar stuff, we'd better keep our own counsels. Sniperz11_@^CS 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

indian navy handicapped cuz of law of sea treaty

with its growing power i think a article should be added about India's sovereignty regarding its ratification of the law of sea treaty.the navy had to seek permission from the UN and not the govt of India to pursue and attack Somali pirates. 122.163.46.243 (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point about the ratification of treaties... an essential information that needs to be added. However, re the permission, you've got it a bit wrong mate.... the Navy sought permission from the Indian Govt itself. In fact, it answers to no one other than the Indian Govt, nor can it go to the UN or any other organization on its own - that is the Govt's job. In this case, the GOVERNMENT stated that it would seek a UN mandate to create a joint group, rather than joining a partisan organization like the NATO group or any other group operating there. Secondly, it sought UN mandate to pursue pirates inside Somalian waters, since there is no govt there. The Govt or IN do not need any permission to operate in international waters. Sniperz11_@^CS 11:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

why MCA image is shown in INDIAN NAVY

Why MCA image is shown in INDIAN NAVY, where in the whole document there is no mention of MCA project. Pls remove that, images should be of NAVY related. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.58.121 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) -

• Done~! --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification

I've just added a tag to a sentence regarding activities in the Malacca Strait. The article referred to does not say what the sentence says it does. The sentence needs to be changed or removed entirely. Buckshot06(prof) 09:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

1.) Closed after no consensus was reached, & 2.) Bcs09 was confirmed as the sockpuppet of the BANNED editor User:Chanakyathegreat

---

By being neutral to India and to Portuguese dictators rule, it will be better to use the term decolonization. The term liberation may be a pain in the butt for the dictator of Portugal at that time and invasion will cheer his heart. So accepting the dictators viewpoint and taking the neutrality stance of Wikipedia to the extreme let's make it decolonization.Bcs09 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that decolonization is a better word than "liberate", and it does describe what happened. However, it's kind of a clumsy word that I've never seen used anywhere else in the context of a specific military operation. I think it's usually used from the perspective of the colonizer, as in "France went through a process of decolonization in North Africa after World War 2", not "the American colonies decolonialized themselves with the Revolutionary War". Personally I think "Invasion of Goa" remains the best choice of words - it is non POV because it factually stated exactly what happened and it's the term used in the article on the subject. However, I don't really mind, I guess it's not so bad as it is. TastyCakes (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Libeation is better,the people too wanted to be free.Zoravar (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Invasion" is a neutral term. This has already been decided in the case of the US-led "Invasion of Iraq", where "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not used except in specific cases referencing the operation itself. WP needs to be consistent. - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Bill, the word "Invasion" is indeed a neutral term and is in used in a lot of military related article here, an example being Operation Overlord - the invasion of Europe in 1944. Therefore, there's no need to get all sentimental or emotional over it, there is no bias shown to anyone except to be accurate in our description of what actually went on. The word "Decolonization" is liken to be a politically correct moniker for those who feel inclined to soften the impact, no different from a Weasel word, IMO and should be omitted for obvious reason/rationale. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Invasion is a neutral term. The term gives a bad impression of the force that is entering the state. Using similar logic we have to use the terms like invasion of France by allied forces even though it is really a liberation of France from fascist Germany.Bcs09 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We do use term invasion for the Allies' entry into France in WW2 - see Invasion of Normandy. So we are only being consistent here. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bil, there is a difference. The allies are entering France and not the French forces hence can be viewed as invasion, whereas in the case of India, Indian is regaining the lost territory. Similar to French regaining the territory. Think of a situation, when you "intrude into your house" each and every day.Bcs09 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously, your strong argument is very much welcome at WP:MILITARY, please proceed to the discussion page and discuss with the rest of the other editors and see whether your version stands up or our version has any legs to stand on. Fair enough? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Indian is regaining the lost territory" is a POV. India as currently constituted has only existed since 1947. They never had the territory to begin with. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whao, what an observation "India never existed prior to 1947". Such ignorance. It's better to say that Europe never existed when India existed in her full glory. Just check this out.Maurya Empire, Mughal Empire You will see that India seems very small compared to the historical India that existed. So it's better that such irresponsible statements are not made.Bcs09 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks "India as currently constituted has only existed since 1947" and "India never existed prior to 1947" have the same meaning, they have no business writing anything in English, especially on WP. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that decolonization is an ambiguous word as it could mean any number of things (i.e. even changing the names of Indian cities was part of decolonization). Invasion seems to me like a neutral term and having read many of the World War II articles referring to the allied victory over Germany. Infact, the only significant battle in World War II (on Wikipedia) that is officially titled a "liberation" of anything is the Liberation of Paris. Note however that Paris actually belonged to France before the commencement of World War II which is different from Goa in India's case as the Republic of India didn't exist before 1947 and as such it could not have territorial claims before 1947. Thus, regardless of whether Goa was part of the Maurya empire or any other empire from the Indian subcontinent, Goa was not internationally recognized as belonging to the Republic of India. This would however not be the case if India was recognized as the successor state to one of the empires in the Indian subcontinent but this isn't what happened. Thus on that note, I think that invasion is a valid title for the operation.

However, I am disappointed with BilCat. BilCat, I'm sure you're no doubt aware of WP:No Personal Attacks which doesn't permit questioning someone's competence or ability to edit the English Wikipedia. I would think that your past blocks would prompt you to more carefully observe the rules of Wikipedia but it certainly doesn't appear that way since edit warring is what you do frequently and what you do best. It doesn't appear that you build consensus, you just force your own POV on others. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, you are not the supreme arbiter of right and wrong on Wikipedia nor are you qualified to make a value judgement of who can and should edit Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia's policy if you find this difficult to grasp. Vedant (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind contributors to only comment on the subject at hand and not to comment on other users and please respect WP:No Personal Attacks, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

When an individual makes a comment like "Do you always lie about what people say, or are you just that ignorant of the English language?" and then covers it up under the auspice of rewriting one's comment, do you suggest that the community not remind that user of the rules of Wikipedia? Failure to not do so doesn't sit well with me as it feels like an implicit acceptance of the situation. Also, don't you think it's somewhat of a double standard to tell me not to make personal attacks (although I don't feel I did here, and that you suggested I did on my talk page) while not relaying the same information to BilCat as well? Also, to clarify, I responded in this thread and not on BilCat's talk page as my issue was concerning his comment here. Please note that this is common practice on Wikipedia. However in BilCat's defence, there is a difference between "India as currently constituted didn't exist" and "India never existed" and Bcs09 accusing BilCat of being ignorant is also a Personal Attack (for which I left a warning on his talk page). Vedant (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but what Bcs09 stated was completely false, whatever the reason for it - he IS either lying, or his grasp of English is such that he should not contribute here, by his own choice. That's not a personal attack. I changed my comments not because I was trying to be sneaky, but because I thought better of them. Removing such comments before someone elsle comments is allowed, to my knowledge. In no way do I consider my comments to Bcs09 to be personal attacks, thoughtless though they might have been. I do consider comments such as "Such ignorance" and "such irresponsible statements" to be uncivil, though not necessarily personal attacks either. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood, which is why I also informed Bcs09 that he should refrain from personal attacks. If you do note, I didn't disagree with the reason for your argument just what I perceived to be a personal attack. If I may say however, he may have just misread your sentence and responded in anger. Thus, you can't necessarily jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has questionable command of the English language. Vedant (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bil if you found my words as offensive or in any manner hurt you. Causing hurt was not my intention and it will never be. Regarding the subject, I did not consider your point of India's existence as true. Terming a civilized nation as non-existent is not correct. It's not offensive to just me. So I request not to make such comments in the future. If you are mentioning boundary then it's better to say that there has been boundary changes in India's histoyr. Even it happened in 1987. That never makes "India non existent prior to 1987". Britain handed over power of Hong kong to China. Will this mean that Britain never existed before that. Territorial changes must not change anything much if the civilization is still intact. That nation will exist as it existed for millenia before with the same culture and pluralism may be with the adoption of modernity with changing times. Considering the point of invasion vs liberation I still think it's liberation. Liberation from the point of "liberating from the control of foreign powers" but at the same time "liberating from oppression" and liberating them to freedom. I don't know whether Wikipedia agrees to this policy but this must be the Wikipedia's Neutral point of view.Bcs09 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding what I said. You are taking offense at what you think I am saying, and not understanding what I have actually said! Someone else can try to explain it to you, but we seem to incapable of communicating. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood what you said. But our viewpoints will never converge on this one. So it's better to forget it. Chapter closed.Bcs09 (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links

IMO, this section of the article page needs to be cleaned up for the "abundance" of external links, especially the subsection for videos. It's beginning to make the article page look very cluttered, please omit needless word as well as SPAM. People, try to keep things simple around here, yeah? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strike! As the administrator MilborneOne (talk · contribs) had removed the disputed video links per WP:EL. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Divergent estimates for size

Currently the infobox claims a size of 250 aircraft though this is uncorroborated by any source I've been able to find. The two sources that do publish numbers have somewhat differing estimates (ranging from 181 - 224). Please see Globalsecurity and AviationWeek. I was wondering which source that people would feel more comfortable using in the infobox or if someone could produce the original 250 aircraft source. Given the choice, I'd go with AviationWeek though neither of the inventories appear to have been updated for some time... Vedant (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro wording change

The recent change I made reflects the outcome of previous discussions at the Blue water navy talk page, please see there if you have any concerns. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit is acceptable. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the usage of the term "Invasion of Goa" over "Liberation of Goa"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed discussion as the starter was identified as the smelly/shameless sock of Chanakyathegreatcoward, time to apply WP:Revert, block, ignore.

---

A new section is being created to discuss the term. Other alternatives can be discussed. Dave, you are invited for a discussion.Mightyocean (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, are you aware of the discussion listed in the (section above)? No consensus means no consensus, why are you still beating a dead horse? Tell me honestly, is this your first account? Call it a hunch but I think that somehow you might be related to User:Chanakyathegreat, who was BANNED from Wikipedia. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience of "working" with User:Chanakyathegreat leads me to suspect that User:Mightyocean is the same user, I don' have anything concrete, just the way he constructed and worded that sentence seems familiar. G.R. Allison (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• No offence but its like dogs turning around to eat their product after they've pooped, why? We'll never know. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Looks like a duck to me... Alrighty, Mightyocean (talk · contribs) has been checked and blocked as an obvious sock of Chanakyathegreatcoward. Case closed and back to our regular TV programming. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Part of Indian History.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Part of Indian History.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Video

I've just removed a highly irrelevant video of a kid playing with a toy gun (it's been removed by a couple of others earlier). It's of poor quality and has no relevance to the article, please do not add it back without gaining consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Woe90i

Woe90i, you be warned again from removing content in this page. The Indian Navy active list has ships around 170 and that itself proves the 157 figure provided by IISS wrong. It's in plain sight and if you know counting, figure it out. Also don't put marines for marine commandos. Both are different. Also you removed the information on Sagar Prahari bal. This is pure vandalism.Linestwice (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Refer to edit revisions. I included the Sagar Prahari bal. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability. The IISS is considered both reliable and authoritative and I nor any other editor will care if 'you think its wrong'.

You have been found guilty of sockpuppetry and are currently under investigation. Therefore any edits you make will likely be seriously contested and probably removed and identified as vandalism.

Good day duck. — Augmented Reality 09:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian Navy don't have auxillary services to support it. It's just the Naval service

You cannot separate Indian Navy ships into two different sections like that of Royal Navy. Every Indian ship is directly under the Indian Navy and manned by military crew, not by civilians. In Britain there are two services. One is military service called the Royal Navy and the other one is the civilian service called Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In India there is no such auxiliary service. Seems Britain is the only service having a separate branch that uses civilian ships in support of military duties. Correctiondetail (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)