In today's world, Template talk:Military of India has acquired significant relevance in various areas. Whether academically, professionally, or personally, Template talk:Military of India has captured the attention of individuals of all ages and interests. From its impact on society to its influence on popular culture, Template talk:Military of India has become a topic of widespread interest. In this article, we will explore the importance and scope of Template talk:Military of India, as well as its implication in different aspects of daily life. From its origin to its evolution today, Template talk:Military of India invites us to reflect on its meaning and its impact on the world in which we live.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military of India template. |
|
India Template‑class | |||||||
|
Military history: National / Asian / Indian / South Asia / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
I added Operation Woodrose to this template and it was reverted. I didn't realize this was controversial and that is why I added it before posting on the talk page. BilCat brought it to my attention that the Military of India denies the operation occurred, so I hoped someone could provide a reliable source for that. I think the issue over inclusion might have to do with the media blackout imposed on punjab at the time. Reliable sources say the operation occurred.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs)
OK if no one objects I'll go ahead and add it into the template then.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
INDIAN COAST GUARD DOES NOT COME UNDER DEFINITION OF "INDIAN ARMED FORCES" or "INDIAN MILITARY". SEE-https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Talk:Indian_Armed_Forces/Archive_1#Is_Indian_Coast_Guard_a_military_force.3F_No.2C_Its_not Netstar1 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The incident took place between Border Security Force on Indian side and Bangladesh Rifles on Bangladesh side. Indian Army was nowhere involved. Then why this template consists of the link to that incident?--Vyom25 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one who feels it's disingenuous to categorize 'Annexations' as 'Internal Conflicts,' when by definition to annex territory it had to have at the time been external to the annexing nation?
I propose removing the 'Internal Conflicts' heading entirely, making 'Annexations' and 'Insurgencies' each direct subcategories of 'Operations' alongside 'Wars' and 'External Conflicts.' 104.246.222.223 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)