Talk:Research and Analysis Wing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Structure

Hi... I'm disturbed to find that large chunks of this article are IDENTICAL to the entry on Pakistan's ISI, with the same phrases being used with only one or two word modifications! I know the two services have common roots, but frankly this seems, at least, lazy, and at worst implausible. Surelyh there are more than geographic differences between the two agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.203.93 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would request you to kindly check the history of both the articles and find out that it was in R&AW page that the structure was first mooted and if you visit the ISI talk page you would find that one of the contributors had commented that the page was based on the template provided in the R&AW page. LegalEagle (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Can someone add external links to this article? Like a more detailed coverage on the topic.. by a news website or government website? thanx. -- Spundun 21:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have added a few words about the alleged RAW involvement in the 1996 US scandal involving illegal funding to political candidates in the US. BTW, heard that the tenure of the present director has been increased. can someone verify? Cheers, Theruvath Prasanth Mathew --T.prasanth.mathew 20:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pls Note

  • RAW is a wrong abbreviation . R&AW is the correct one. Again R&AW Is not an agency technically.rather its a wing of Cabinet Secretrariot. The previous version was almost perfectly correct regarding these. Pls revert back and then make suitabel addtions to it.-Bharatveer 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • can u pls cite any reference for such claimLegaleagle86 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)legaleage86


NPOV

  • i can see a lot of paki propaganda on the site. RAW never had any operation chanakya - it isnt that powerful. the disturbances in balochistan are no longer supported by indians since it was stopped when vajpayee was the foreign minister; it is alleged that balochis were trained in the thar though it seems too far fetched a claim. waziristan is under the influence of the taliban. for the raw to influence them they need the support of the afgans, but that is not possible since they are against the isi-backed taliban.

can somebody change it? i'm a new user - ironturn


  • thank you ironturn. i clarify i am not a paki :} proud to be an indian i have changed few of the 'offending' lines, do drop your suggestions from time to time -- Legaleagle86 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • welcome, eagle. actually sites like defence journal and global security are pakistani propaganda machines. i say we take cues from them and search them in international media to check if its valid. i think you should read about the operation leech incident, i'm not sure whether that should be added in RAWs failures or successes. there's the hijacking of a fokker freindship plane in 1971 by kashmiri 'terrorist' hashim qureshi. it could be a raw ploy 'cause it proved fatal for the pakistanis. it hard to decide cause raw never owns up anything. i'll try to provide the links to the sites. meanwhile i'll learn to use and edit wikipedia:) thanks - ironturn


Its been long since the npov tag has been put up as per request of members, but circumstances have changed sufficiently now, i propose to delete the npov tag after three days, if anyone has any alternate suggestions please jot it here Legaleagle86 05:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Err...I haven't looked at previous iterations of the article, but I just came across it and it still looks like it has POV problems, generally, as previously mentioned, slanting towards Pakistan. Saying the Indian army "unleashed a reign of terror" is hardly NPOV language. It's not outrageous, but it's not as good as it should be. The article is otherwise pretty spiffy. Maybe I'll try to tackle a cleanup myself after I do some research. Ford MF 05:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ford, thanks for commenting . But i would like to point out that I was unable to find a single instance in the article which mentioned that the Indian Army unleashed a terror campaign(on the other hand the article says in the late 1960s the Pakistani Army unleashed a reign of terror on civillians which included killing, rape and looting), you have commented that the article is slanted towards pakistan, however the article has a very unflattering tone towards the western neighbour of India, the RAW success in Bangladesh pictures a very grim pic of pak army. In the end i would like to know what exactly you meant by 'Spiffy', looking forward to your contribution in the article Legaleagle86 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello everyone, if anyone can find the logo of RAW on internet please mention the site here. -- Legaleagle86
    • it will be also very nice if someone can contribute with a quick reference box Legal Eagle 05:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • hi, got a message from authentic source that RAW doesnt have logo but a seal only....its not available to general public so lets see if we can get the seal Legaleagle86 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is not propaganda, R&AW is heavily involve in internal affairs of Pakistan. 3 balochs hijack plane from Quetta and wanted to take it to mumbai. This is factual. and lastly, don't get offended that easily, this is something for knowledge, we don't want to listen "India is great etc etc" and of course you would do the same, so please avoid any irrational comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheistbyfaith (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

how?

how to join in r.a.w..? now i am studying m.b.a. how can i join in your organisation. MY AIM IS TO BECOME AN R.A.W. OFFICER please contact me @

    • Thank you for your query do follow the link http://www.planyourcareer.com/degree/RESEARCH.ASP.htm I must however comment that there is much difference in the reel and real life of a spy. Its always the opposite of James Bond stuff in real life. So if you get inspired by Bond movies this stuff is not for you. Legaleagle86 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I am also removing your address as it is unsafe to put up ones full address at an open forum. Legaleagle86 10:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Recruitment to the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) is conducted in the following manner:

Direct recruitment: Deputy Field Officers (at the junior level), field officers and senior field officers are appointed directly to the Research & Analysis Service (RAS). Recruitment at the lowest level is that of an ‘attache’ and during the probation period, you are designated as Under Secretary. As per the rules, 50 per cent of the posts in the senior cadre are filled through direct recruitment while the remaining are filled through promotions and deputation of special officers from the CBI, IT, Customs, RBI, and the state police (at the SP, DIG or IG level) for a period of 5-7 years which is extendable up to ten years. Senior level appointments: These are made in two ways: (i) on-campus recruitment of Civil Service candidates while training for the foundation course and (ii) recruitment of University graduates. You must have a first division from Class X onwards. Final selection is made through interviews. Specialist appointments: Personnel for technical or scientific jobs are selected through campus interviews which are conducted at such institutes. Generally, those with some experience in government organisations are preferred. The Interview Panel includes experts and selectors from the UPSC. Language specialists: Interestingly, RAW also employs language specialists as its work involves dealing with foreign countries.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020618/edu.htm Legaleagle86 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we disclosing sensitive information

  • Those contributing to such pages (RAW, ARC etc) pls ensure such info should not be posted on the net (wikipedia here) which is not available publicly (it may be available to other country's Intelligence agencies but not necessarily to terrorist organizations). I have observed that wikipedians in trying to enrich wikipedia tend to overdo things. -- Vjdchauhan 06:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the info are there in public domain we are just bringing together the entire info in a presentable manner, and about terrorist org, it is an open secret that the other country's Intelligence agencies are in close contact with the terror groups Legaleagle86 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Help on infobox

its high time that the raw page have an infobox so i would like to invite help on the issue Legaleagle86 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Research and Analysis Wing

Satya, Sampurna, Sarvatrya
Director  : P K H Tharakan
Department  : PM Office
Established  : September 21, 1968
Budget  : Classified
Employees  : Classified
Major units:
Methods of Intelligence collections:
Notable Directors:


suggestions and modifications will be helpful Legaleagle86 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

wishlist oninfobox

  1. help on raw logo
  2. Align the colons

Copyrighted information

  • Compare some of the paragraphs with the identical content in [1]:

The Wikipedia article: Operation Blue Star: This was the codename given to the storming of the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar in 1984. Although it was a domestic matter and IB's concern, yet R&AW was pulled in because of the active Pakistani involvement. R&AW drew flak as it could not assess the strength of Bhindranwale's forces. What was to be a 5 hours operation stretched to five days and tanks had to be brought in and Indian Army suffered heavy casualties. Ultimately Indira Gandhi had to pay with her own life as she was gunned down by her Sikh bodyguard in retaliation to Operation Blue Star.

"Raw at War-Genesis of Secret Agencies in Ancient India":
Operation Blue Star: This was the codename given to the storming of the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar in 1984. Although it was a domestic matter and IB's concern, yet RAW was pulled in under the pretext of a foreign element's (allegedly Pakistani) involvement. RAW failed miserably as it could not assess the strength of Bhindranwale's forces. What was to be a 5 hours' operation stretched to 5 days and tanks had to be brought in and Indian Army suffered heavy casualties. Ultimately Indira Gandhi had to pay with her own life as she was gunned down by her Sikh bodyguard in retaliation to Operation Blue Star. Kao, the Prime Minister's Security Adviser resigned within 24 hours of her assassination.

This text is virtually identical to that of the source, and everything that I have removed is of the same kind. I understand that copyrights can be a pain, but Wikipedia cannot have copyrighted content (and this is way too much content to qualify for fair use). NatusRoma | Talk 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)



    • I admit that the para on bluestar, telecommunication and emergency will fail the litmus test but why should bangla,sikkim and other operations be categorised as violation

The Wikipedia article on sikkim op: Encircled by Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and West Bengal in the Eastern Himalayas Sikkim was ruled by a Maharaja. The Indian Government had recognized the title of Chogyal (Dharma Raja) for the Mahraja of Sikkim. In 1972 R&AW was given the green signal to go ahead with the operation of installing a pro-Indian democratic government there. In less than three years Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975.

"Raw at War-Genesis of Secret Agencies in Ancient India" Sikkim: Encircled by Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and West Bengal in the Eastern Himalayas, Sikkim presented a lucrative target to the Indians. It was ruled by a Maharaja. The Indian Government had recognized the title of Chogyal (Dharma Raja) for the Mahraja of Sikkim. After their kill in East Pakistan, in 1972, RAW was given the green signal to go ahead with the operation of installing a pro-Indian democratic government there. In less than three years, with the manipulation of RAW, Sikkim became the 22nd State of the Indian Union on April 26, 1975.

The identical sentences in the paras are merely facts eg, sikkim is surrounded by WB,tibet, nepal etc. eg, the maharaja of sikkim was known as chogyal, these sentences cant be copyrighted, moreover the tone of the two articles are completely different (though being a lawyer i must say it doesnt affect the copyright law) thus i find there is no question of copyright infringrmrnt on the sikkim issue.

similarly on the issue of soft target the offending lines are On 23 June, 1985 Air India's Flight 182 was blown up near Ireland and 329 innocent lives were lost. On the same day another explosion took place at Tokyo's Narita airport's transit baggage building where baggage was being transferred from Cathay Pacific Flight No CP 003 to Air India's Flight 301 which was scheduled for Bangkok. Both aircraft were loaded with explosives from Canadian airports. Flight 301 got saved because of a delay in its departure.

these are FACTS and facts can NEVER be copyrighted (under few continental laws few facts have been copyrighted but under US laws facts cant be copyrighted) i welcome anyone to leave their views on whether this para contains anything other than facts.

poornima (except for the sentence under tight wraps of security is fact), mauritus also belong to the FACT cant be COPYRIGHTED category.

thanks all and do take your time to read the original books from which SM HALI plagarised and pls do leave ideas about infobox. Wishing every one SUBHO BIJOYA.....Legaleagle86 07:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind wishes. Facts can't be copyrighted, but works such as journal articles can be, and are, copyrighted. Even if the things that the "Raw at War" article says are true and nicely written, Wikipedia can't just use them as its own, or even change them a tiny bit and then use them. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information, especially the section on Using copyrighted work from others. NatusRoma | Talk 04:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well the topics that you deleted on the training and organisation of RAW agents is a copy of the book 'Inside RAW' by A Raina, so first of all Capt. Hali cannot have any copyright on that portion Legaleagle86 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Secondly if you carefully read the US copyright law on fair use esp Sec 107 it stipulates that use of a little portion for reporting etc which does not hurt the commercial viability of the original can be accepted. Legaleagle86 05:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Then A. Raina owns the copyright to that information, and whether or not Capt. Hali has violated that copyright is not important to our discussion: what is important is that we do not. The sections that you included in the Wikipedia article are far too large to qualify for fair use. In particular:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The amount of information used in the Wikipedia article is fairly high in relation to the whole of Capt. Hali's article, even excluding the sections on training and organization. NatusRoma | Talk 06:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to compare the use in the wiki article with the book by A.Raina and not with Capt. Hali's article (you have yourself agreed that A.Raina owns the copyright) comared to the huge book the portion used is miniscule, and at this point i would reiterate that the use of the para from Raina's book cannot harm in any way the commercial interests on the contrary it is getting publicity, exposure etc. Legaleagle86 06:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Presently i am trying to make the para on emergency, telecommunication and bluestar compatible with the 'rigorous' copyright demands of wiki, will be grateful with some help Legaleagle86 07:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

QUICK REFERENCE

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of Fair Use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[2]

Greetings. I'm a local expert on Wikipedia copyright. Unfortunately, we cannot use text from another copyrighted Website under a "fair use" claim. Even if it's legal, it's against Wikipedia policy. The only "fair use" text that is allowed on Wikipedia is a direct quote from a notable person, quoted and sourced. That doesn't apply in this case, so the use of copyrighted text is not allowed. Whenever you edit a page, you see the warning: "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." That's easy to understand.
I suggest you rewrite the text in your own words. If the people on this page spend half as much time re-writing the text as they spent debating fair use, there wouldn't be a problem. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Quadell (this is not difficult, as I've never seen Quadell be wrong). The raw facts in the text are not copyrightable, but the specific language and structure are. If you write your own text with your own structure and arrangement, you will be fine. (Also, don't forget to attribute those facts to the article per WP:CITE) TheronJ 13:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Explanation of extensive (minor) edits

  • Re-placed Controversies section to before the Media portrayal section. Factual information about R&AW trumps fictional portrayals.
  • Removed numerous extraneous and POV adjectives. e.g.: "unholy nexus"? R&AW is India's premiere external intelligence agency? Isn't it their only external intelligence agency.
  • Minor wikilinking (e.g. Raj), and fixing of current wikilinks so that so many of them do not go to disambiguation pages or redirects
  • spelling and punctuation errors (e.g. in "Wing of the Intelligence Bureau", wing isn't capitalized)
  • Fixed some footnotes. (<ref> tags go after punctuation)
  • Standardized to R&AW. In half the article's mentions it was RAW and the other half R&AW.
  • Operation Cactus probably shouldn't be called "bloodless" when the History of the Maldives article says 19 people were killed in it.
  • I deleted a reference in Operation Chanakya because the cited article contained no information about ISI funding and training terrorists (no factual information at all, really). Not once does the article even MENTION "evidence about ISI's involvement in training and funding Kashmiri terrorist groups", to which I have added a {{fact}} tag.
  • I don't have time to go through all the citations now, but I consider them suspect. If someone's got time, they probably ought to make sure they're all on the level.
  • Wow, there we go, deleted this reference too, since it seems to go only to a personal networking site.
  • Removed "Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed recently remarked that "India has significant ingress in the Afghan ministry of tribal affairs, and is using it for covert activities against Pakistan" and its {{POV-statement}} tag. I found the quote (unattributed in the Wiki article) here, minus the "against Pakistan" part, which changes the whole tenor of the sentence. Without that, it no longer needs or deserves to be in that part of the article.
  • I blanked the introduction section that has NOTHING to do with R&AW (doesn't even mention it). Chanakya wasn't a member of R&AW, and to cite him here so elaborately is like citing Sun Tzu in every single article about the Chinese military. Wikilinking to Chanakyan's article is sufficient; it doesn't need to be here too. And saying: "Acting on the Chanakyan principles, they exploit human weaknesses for wine, women and wealth, and, at times resort to blackmail"...how is that different from any other intelligence agency that exploits the exact same things?
  • Got too damn tired to go on. Will return to finish other sections later. Ford MF 18:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Great work

I have to commend Legaleagle86, Bharatveer, NatusRoma and all the other wikipedians who have expanded this page to what it is now, and made it extremely informative..(compared to the old one). I appreciate the efforts you have taken, especially considering the obscure nature of the RAW...

...Keep up the good work guys.

P.S...a small suggestion...the slogan in the infobox should be satyameva jayate instead of satyam Eva jayate. The former is the spelling used in the official insignias of India as ell as being a correct transliteration from sanskrit.While Satyam Eva Jayate would be grammatically acceptable as a splitting of the roots, they are usually conjoined.

prasad88 09:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


In sanskrit every word can indicate either masculine, feminine or neutral genders. 
Eg:Rāmah - means the word indicates something that is masculine
   Rāmā - means the word indicates something that is feminine
   Rāmam - means the word indicates something that is meutral

Note: Given all the three indicates the Sabda in Prathama Vibhakti, eka vachana.

So Satyam has no gender in the word when used in mundaka upanishad. Eva means only.Jayate means to win (It was an "Atmanepada Sabda").

So when using Satyam Eva Jayate eventually become Satyameva Jayate. In sanskrit there is no Sabda called meva. We can use any of the above two, Since Sanskrit is higly inflected language, it is suggested to write the later one.- User:Bsskchaitanya (9.41) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Payment from India and Pakistan Side.

There were news that Wing employees are poorly paid than Pakistan. Will anybody give details?vkvora 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jow to join RAW

Hi all,

I Like to RAW. Anyone pls let me know to procedures Advance thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ksmaniam (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Who was really the first r.a.w director?

Hi everyone, on the Evolution of R&AW it specifically says Sanjeevi Pillai in 1947 took over as the first Indian Director. However in contrast to this in the Directors of R&AW section it says that R.N.Kao was the first director and there is no mention of Sanjeevi Pillai whatsoever on the list of directors. Could someone please clarify and elucidate, is this an editing error or what? Many thanks in advance

Pillai was the first director of Intelligence Bureau in independent India and Kao was the first director of R&AW, R&AW and IB are two seperate agencies. LegalEagle 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Media portrayal section

The section on "media portrayal" is completely irrelevant and doesn't add one bit to the encyclopedic value of the article. I would strongly suggest that this section be slated for deletion. If necessary, please move the content to more relevant pages, like some page about Bollywood.(Anonymi (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Hi, CIA page has a section on Influencing public opinion and law enforcement which is on media potryal, other pages like ISI etc also have section on media potryal. Moreover this section in this particular article shows that there are lot of cinematic work on R&AW. However if the consensus is on removing the section I would propose that we have a seperate article on media potryal of R&AW and a fork is introduced in the R&AW page. LegalEagle (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Forking the page is an excellent suggestion. The CIA page forks to separate pages on CIA and the media and CIA in fiction and the movies. I would think that is the more appropriate thing to do, because the media portrayal in itself has nothing to with the organization, unless it can be established that media portrayal is actively influenced and manipulated by the agency. Similar structure is followed in pages on most major intelligence agencies: MI6, Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia), Mossad, Directorate-General for External Security, Australian Secret Intelligence Service and Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Also, we could take a leaf out of the CIA page and rename the section title "media portrayal", more accurately, as "R&AW in fiction and the movies". (Anonymi (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC))
Title of section 'media portrayal' has been changed to 'R&AW in fiction and the movies' LegalEagle (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work! Now we wait for a consensus on the fork. (Anonymi (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "fas" :
    • [http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/raw/index.html Research and Analysis Wing] as accessed on 9.4.07
    • [http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/raw/index.html Research and Analysis Wing [RAW] - India Intelligence Agencies<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1971 surrender.jpg

The image File:1971 surrender.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. --01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for citations?

Does anyone feel that there is a need for citations here? I inserted one "fact" thingummabob for section Functions of R&AW where we don't know how we know that separatist tendencies are grounds for recruitment into R&AW. Who alleged this? Also, is getting a mole or a person to defect from another spy/terrorist/government organization the same as "recruitment"? I am not sure about that.... Nshuks7 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In an article like this adding as many citations as possible is best IMO. The word "recruitment" should be a NPOV rather than "mole defected". Again IMO. -Belasd (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In any article, citations are needed. Controversial articles especially. As for whether mole defected is the same as recruitment, IDK about that. Deavenger (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vohra committee report: dated?

Upon following the link to the Vohra committee report, I found that it had been published in 1993 (more than 15 years ago) and the report itself cited facts discovered from the 1980s! Isn't that a bit dated? I will look for what amendments to this article are needed because of this. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Balochistan issues article

Balochistan related sections do not cite any relevant sources. The three sources mentioned:

don't even mention the words "balochistan", "baloch", "raw" or "research and analysis wing" anywhere in the body of the articles. Hence I intend to remove the suspect passages. Please advise. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked the sources over, and I agree. Most of them would seem to do better in articles about the overthrow of the Taliban, or Afghan-Indo relations. Deavenger (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, citation number 48 (http://nesohr.org/human-rights-reports/StatisticsOnCiviliansAffectedByWar.pdf?PHPSESSID=8204ff9bfa58e205f71a95c3899f8835), supposed to be stating:

R&AW created a terrorist organisation to stop Sri Lanka from developing quickly economically and forging ties with other nations in the West or China. R&AW funded and armed the terrorists to wreak havoc in the country. Breaking with the Past By Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli, p54

does not exist. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Citations 50, 53 and 56 does not say anything about RAW or Chanakya; 53 and 56 are the same as well. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060422/main6.htm is mentioned again, this time for the claim that "It is also claimed by Pakistani authorities that approximately 600 ferraris (Baloch tribal dissidents) and members of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan were trained to handle explosives and use sophisticated weapons in these camps"! Nshuks7 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2007_files/no_2/article/a4.htm seems like a dubious article. It goes on and on about India's legitimate and transparent involvement in Afghanistan and then concludes with "Pakistan suspects that, through these consulates, India is involved in clandestine activities aimed at destabilizing Pakistan" and "Important Hindu scriptures and the works of Hindu political thinkers have influenced the process of foreign policy formulation in India" kind of rubble. Please establish legitimacy of this source. Nshuks7 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS

I made a number of changes, mostly wp:MOS. Not repeating article name in sections. There were a number of structures in the article that were unique. Replaced with more usual structures... bolded lists with subsections for example. - Sinneed 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your extended edit summary. Wouldnt a sub-section on 'secretaries' fit properly after the organization section. LegalEagle (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

203.94.136.98 (talk) Bangladesh Independence 203.94.136.98 (talk)

Raw was Formenting Independence movmentment in Bangladesh From some experts before Banlgdeah liberation war if any intersted in coming up wiht a consensus to be place in raw activities in Banldaesh war of indpendence. Furthermore stated by a cridible resource Council of Foriegn realtions

Furthermore more info on INdia raw role in the bangla movement it said india supported mujib Shiekh nationliat ideas in the 1960s before the 1970s brutal crackdown from the Paksiatni army. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/raw/index.html this is the same Webpage used onn the raw site in wiki 203.94.136.98 (talk) 203.94.136.98 (talk)

have add to giv balanced View

http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.136.98 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to be a part.

Edit warring on 'Controversy' section

Hi all, during past few days there has been (what I perceive to be) a very low profile edit warring on 'controversy' section of the article. The main bone of contention seems to be two issue one of misuse of position after retirement by ex chief the other being the issue of ethnic imbalance. Phylusphish for the first time brought out the issue of misuse of position, the data on ethnic imbalance was already there in the article but in the introductory para of the controversy section Phylusphish added the issues of discrimination to sikhs and made it into a seperate section. I had reverted the edits as I felt that the edits did not add value to the article and was not in sync with the general style of the article, later Phylusphish left a message at my talk page and we had a discussion on the issue [3]. Later I retained the references dug out by Phylusphish and re added the info on specific corruption charges leveled against a company. The article remained stable for few days and after that a completely new user Kahdaius made the exact changes which were done by Phylusphish, an anon blanked the data, after that there has been one round of reversion by me and I have also put the data of misuse of official position in the biographic wiki article of the ex chief [4], I mentioned it in my edit summary during reversal. Yet afterwards Kahdaius readded the same data. I would request all the concerned parties to come together and resolve the question as to whether the data on 'Unsanctioned Post-Retirement Perks' of the ex chief which has been added to the biographic article merits a mention at the page on the agency. Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. This is not a section on post retirement benefits. Controversy section should highlight the failings or defections that the organisation has had in the recent past. Also, I have tagged two un-cited statements claiming anti-minority leanings. I shall remove them shortly should they remain un-referenced. Saroshp (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious discrimination ... consensus?

An edit was reverted without any obvious discussion, stating there was no wp:consensus to delete. Well, I don't right off hand see consensus to include. Please be sure It is usually best when following wp:BRD to actually do the "D" part after reverting a wp:bold edit.- Sinneed 06:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am also not opposing the restoration, just adding a spot for the discussion part of the BRD cycle.- Sinneed 06:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sinneed for taking lead and starting the discussion, an anon removed well cited data of ethnic imbalance along with some uncited lines, I had restored it as some more time should be given to find out citations to buttress the arguments made. At the same time I believe that if in a week or so the citations are not found then the uncited data should be removed and relevant para should be merged with the introductory para in the controversy section. Waiting for more comments and ideas. LegalEagle (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Most of the bulleted issues deal with specific instances of controversy like mass leave, inaction in harassment cases etc. IMHO the issue of ethnic imbalance should be put in the introductory para where a stub line already exists. LegalEagle (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning other services

There seems to be a dispute about adding the ISI to the article. On review, I don't see the need to mention either CIA or ISI... and propose dropping both and adding "more widely known agencies" or similar text. Also, while I do see this as a potential wp:edit war, I don't see wp:vandalism.- Sinneed 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Newly independent"?

The lead states that RAW "was formed in September 1968, after the newly independent Republic of India was faced with 2 consecutive wars, the Sino-Indian war of 1962 and the India-Pakistani war of 1965". Even by 1962, the date of the first event mentioned, India had been independent for 15 years and a republic for 12. Is that really newly independent? Loganberry (Talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Balochistan

Should we add to the article info regarding accusations from Pakistan of involvement of RAW in the Balochistan trouble. RAW's involvement is of course not proven, but Pak's accusations are a fact. Circumcised (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2011 (UTCl

IMHO, accusations of R&AW involvement in Balochistan can be added in controversy section after the subsection on defections, it should not be added under major operations as there is little neutral third party proof of R&AW involvement. Attention should be paid to extensively cite the section and use as far as possible authoritative sources like govt of pak press release, statement by senior minister etc. Original research should not be used. LegalEagle (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon policy

Hi, there are unconfirmed reports on the revival of CIT-X and the launch of a joint "summer offensive" by R&AW and Mossad in 2010. While this piece of info hasn't appeared in mainstream media, I thought it would be wise to do a check. One such link: http://totallyfreepress.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/secret-indian-document-pakistan-dragon-policy-cit-x-ops-mossad-iran/ Vk1 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)vk1

Archive

I have set up archive for archiving thread older than year. Please discuss below if you feel 1 year is not appropriate--DBigXray 21:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

RAW or R&AW?

IMO, we should keep it as RAW, since that is the most commonly used abbreviation, even by Government and Intelligence officials. For one, its simpler, and it aids easy pronounciation. R&AW may be used once or twice in the page, but I think it should be RAW in all other places. Sniperz11 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

hello sniper, the correct abbreviation of reserach and analysis wing is R&AW nor RAW, the later is used mainly by media as it can be easily pronounced and has a recall value, however government organisations always use the term R&AW, you can refer to vohra committee report where the agency has been referred as R&AW and not RAW. Moreover the SAAG website had a page on exactly this topic, you can search the sites archive to find that paper. Hence it would be in consonance with the policies of wiki to present the correct info but to let the lay men understand about the topic we should use the common abbreviation only once in the intro, LegalEagle 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Legal... ok, I think we'll leave R&AW then. Sniperz11 06:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know Even the government agencies, RAW itself and almost all of National and international books call it as RAW, this along with WP:COMMONNAME makes a strong case for using RAW in the article. --DBigXray 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Even Brittanica uses RAW (for obvious reasons)[5], Following policies RAW is word to use. A mention of R&AW is already in the lead as some news articles use R&AW also--DBigXray 14:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Govt agencies rarely refer to R&AW in their communique, if they do they usually refer it to as Cabinet Secretariat. Even R&AW recruitment adverts refers it as Cabinet Secretariat. Vohra Comm report is the only authentic govt report which refers to RAW/R&AW as R&AW. However if we decide to follow the commonly known and most frequently used (albeit wrong by govt std) acronym then we should keep it RAW. Do let me know your views. LegalEagle (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is very clear on this about the naming conventions. The name that is commonly used by other reliable sources is used. A vast majority of the books, online journals online articles use RAW, although a few of them use R&AW as well. As we have to choose one for the article we should follow the one in line with the policies on this (i.e. WP:COMMONNAME ) --DBigXray 19:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I do fully agree with the naming convention and the preference 'to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.' However this may sometime lead to minor mistakes like RAS is not RAW and Allied Service but is referred (in govt communication) as R&AW and Allied Service. So as a compromise I would suggest that somewhere in the article we mention that the commonly accepted acronym is RAW but official usage is R&AW (like for example in RAS). Do let me know your views. LegalEagle (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
We have already mentioned both RAW and R&AW in the very first line of the article. You can add a line about usage either in the lead section( the last sentence that talks about he Research and Analysis Service (RAS) ) or somewhere in the history section will also do. In my opinion a mention of usage of acronyms is better suited on the history section.--DBigXray 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I did a basic google search with the strings "Research and Analysis Wing" + RAW, it gave 693K hits while with "Research and Analysis Wing" + R&AW it gave 371K hits. Also if we analyse the timeline of usage we would find that incidence of using R&AW has increased with time especially in news papers and news magazines. LegalEagle (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
See RAW wins the number game as well. but what is more important is how the reliable sources address it. On Google books "Research and Analysis Wing" + "R&AW" gets 435 hits while "Research and Analysis Wing" + "RAW" gets 25700. this makes our choice much easier. Encyclopedia Brittanica also uses RAW. --DBigXray 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Motto?

The Sanskrit phrase धर्मो रक्षति रक्षित: is recorded in the article just below the picture of the logo. Is there any record indicating that this Sanskrit phrase is a sort of a motto or slogan of the R&AW? If there is a reference, it should be referenced here or this phrase should be deleted since it is not giving any additional information and is probably misleading.- Prodey (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)prodey 08-July-2012

with a little google earch i was able to find this [6] that gives the motto and its explanation in english. I think we can include this information in some section of the article --DBigXray 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

CLEAN TERRORISTS AND THEIR GROUPS

SIR RAJINDER KHANA -AS I AM PART OF BHARAT PARIVAR "EK BHARAT MATA UNKE HUM SAB BACHEY=EK PARIVAR" JAI BHARAT MATA KI..SIR OUR PM HAS GIVEN WAY THAT GOES WITH YOU SIR AS WE ARE MEANS OUR BROTHERS OF INDIAN ARMY VERY WELL AND NEXT TARGET IS TO VANISH THE HEAD QUARTERS OF TERRORIST ORG. IN PAKISTAN VERY SOON. SO ITS NOT EASY BUT WE WILL HAVE VICTORY BY THE GRACE OF GOD. SIR I HAVE LIVED 5 YRS IN BOMBAY IN 1992 TO 1997 AND (FROM MY CHILDHOOD WEAPONS ARE MY PASSION TO KNOW MAXIMUM .AS KNOW SIR MODI JI IS GOING TO ISRAEL ABD AS YOU KNOW 'CORNER SHOT" IS UNBEATEABLE TILL TODAY. TOMORROW NO ONE HAS SEEN. SIR I WANT BE BE A SOLDIER OF RAW AND BHARAT MATA. REQUEST IS THAT GIVE SOME ID AND POWER TO DO MY BEST FOR OR BHARAT FAMILY. SIR IN PUNJAB WE HAVE SEEN A LONG PHASE OF TERRORISM AT THAT TIME MY COUSIN BROTHER-IN-LAW IPS SH. RP JOSHI WERE IG HQ. TO WIN IF WE THINK WITH SAME MIND OF ANTI SOCIAL ELEMENTS OR TERRORISTS OR ABOVE THEN THEIR THINKING THEN WE CAN ACHIEVE THE GOAL.AS CHIEF OF K.F.C DALJEET BITTU WAS IN NAWANSHEHAR AND ONE OTHER PLACE IN JULL. DISST. BUT IT WAS DECLARED AND IN NEWS THAT HE IS IN PAKISTAN. SAME IS POSITION OF DAWOOD HE IS FOR 300 DAYS IN INDIA 50 DAYS IN DUBAI AND IF THEN MAXIMUM 5 DAYS IN PAK ITS MY ITTIUTION SIR..AS PER YOUR ORDER I WILL TRY TO DO MY BEST AND A HAND FOR YOU SIR..THANKS....VANDE MATRAM SYR RAJINDER JI PL. CHECK MY TWITTER N FB AC. 24 HOURS AT DUTY MOB.NO.REGT.IN OUR GOVT +91 9814090056..LDH.PUNJAB--GOD BLESS BHARAT AND BHARAT PARIVAR...JAI BHARAT MATA KI117.199.98.48 (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 34 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is R&AW exempted from RTI?

The page http://rti.india.gov.in/exempted.php does not specifically mention this agency but includes some of its child agencies. Although I'm sure it is exempted from RTI but do we have a reference so that we can add it to the article?

Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The list on the website was updated to add "Research & Analysis Wing of The Cabinet Secretariat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Presidential

Respectable Intelligence President ; Our state management of the Republic of Turkey to the world that I would take matters into my own hands, please declare me.People in Turkey speaking a lie that is dangerous to my country to get my hands on the blow end management.The government is not managing the Government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, terrorism and drug policy must be an end to the lies.Only I'm the right person without religious belief and political opinion.If you want to kill world leaders Recep Tayyip Erdogan leave the country if you blow it lands.Don't rely for betraying to the world of National Intelligence Organization.As the owner of a bomb and counterinsurgency Turkish political thought of the game is to find the last if I'm not me God by my side we'll blow it up terrorist suicide bomber heaven and hell belief in non-vows right I don't see ERDOGAN for.For world peace for love I'll kill kill me in front of the camera while giving money to God if I've said, until today I was born.The only true world country of Turks and Turkey in America playing the game I've trusted most large and small meeting rooms, and banquet facilities.suffer to live in fear of suicide as they relate to the world was written.Please stop these games my life who can't last up to the life of the world will be of temporary interest and benefit, but y1 and y2 the mole fractions in the liquid phase under the selected folder all subfolders are shown as a question mark, we have a solution to my problems can bring, while Erdogan and the ruling political elite rely on and should be killed at the end.Tap state without belief in the day of judgment won't kill me I lied, like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same.My life came from people who don't take the main target of criticism was the claim that the animal.Turkey shoot, if you limit exempt from international issues to escape is listening to me please.Only hit the right country for me to talk about confidential information about me my sign I will give ERDOGAN held by the leaders of the world to its knees stubborn to appreciate you belong.And who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against allāh, the prophet of the world the idea of the prices around here that is aimed at providing.Unseen,unknown,unheard, but I'll give you that pain is felt in the heart states that the world will not be speaking a lie if it supports Best regards ; Kindly ask you. Hasan ERTİK


Later, this land lying in the number of heartbeats in the world to me if you are connecting the end of the speech


Religion war world Turkey choose to take care of me the side of my mark SE the number of heartbeats is seen in the governments of the world to appreciate me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.234.165.114 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Research and Analysis Wing. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Kargil War

Hey there, @SshibumXZ:. What here [7] I am trying to say is RAW was failed in Kargil war not other Indo-Pak wars and the source is about Kargil War Report not the other wars. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Anmolbhat: Oh crap! Should’ve read it through, I apologise immensely for my brain fart. And if you want to, by all means, go and revert my erroneous edit.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of exchange rate

What is the wikipedia policy on conversion of currency? In the article India Rupee has been converted using current exchange rate. However, that paints a grossly misleading picture as USD-INR exchange rate was quite different in 1970s and 1980s. I believe any conversion should be done in the exchange rate of the time and not when the article is being written. The exchange rate in early 70s was 7.5 INR to every USD as compared to about 70 INR for every USD. 20 million INR would have been about 2.7 million USD rather than 300k USD that is converted in the article. I will make the changes in a week if there is no reply to this comment. Ruppanbabu (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Research and Analysis Wing. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I want join raw Shivanand Vairagi (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Shivanand Vairagi:, this talk page is only about to disscus about RAW Wikipedia article. If you want to join RAW, just google it. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Organising “Operations” section

I propose that the content in the “Operations” section be organised using subsections:-The list of operations is too long for comfortable navigation. Also, a reader who is trying to find a specific operation in the list will have difficulty. Therefore, it makes sense in putting each operation in the section into separate subsections.—Vaibhavafro (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Vaibhavafro, Your proposal is incomplete, until you name what kind of sections you want to add. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to make different article for Operations under RAW? Brown Chocolate (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
no. IMHO it is not so big so as to demand a new article--DBigXrayᗙ 12:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead with it as it is not a big change. I retained some titles of operations which has references adjacent to them; moving those references to some other place would have been inappropriate.Vaibhavafro (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
That was just an aesthetic change. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
In a way, yes. I just wanted to notify this. If it wasted your time, I am sorry.—Vaibhavafro (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition of sources and information

Do you mind explaining non-relevant sources and not-constructive edits that I made to the RAW article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.222.27.228 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@117.222.27.228: Please note that you are on the verge of potentially violating the WP:3RR rule, as you seem to be engaging in an edit-war. You edits to this article ([8], [9], [10]) have been reverted by more than two editors. The same edit was also made from another IP address ([11]) Your edits are not constructive and thus, unhelpful because this source nowhere mentions the Indian Ordnance Factories Service while the other source mentions the same but nowhere establishes per your edits that "many candidates were taken from...the Officers of the Indian Ordnance Factories Service (IOFS)". Latsly, please note that your edit summaries are seemingly vague. Please do not restore your edits before building a consensus here. Otherwise the same may attract a block per the 3RR rule. Alternatively, please provide a WP:RS which actually establishes the information you want to included. Please refer to WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Removal of Kulbhusan Jadhav from 'Notable Officers' section

1. The Pakistani claim of Mr. Jadhav being an R&AW operative is ambiguous, and totally declined by the Government of India.

2. Furthermore, the case of Mr. Jadhav is in the International Court of Justice, Hauge, and so such remarks have been made by the authority either.

3. Therefore, the name from the list may please be deleted at the earliest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User4edits (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HTML comment

A large part of this article is enclosed in an HTML comment and is not displayed to the reader. Certes (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

hello sir i want to join it ..... Palvi.jaskaranaheer (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Research_and_Analysis_Wing/Archive_1&oldid=1136376756"