Talk:King's Commissioned Indian Officer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Indian military history task force

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] KCIOs vs ICOs

Hi, I don't think KCIOs were trained at the IMA. Officers who graduated from the IMA, even before Independance, were called Indian Commissioned Officers (ICOs). KCIOs went to Sandhurst. Kunal 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Indian officers trained at Sandhurst were King's Commissioned Officers, exactly the same as their British counterparts. -- Necrothesp 14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think those were the KCIOs. There was a clear distinction between KCIOs and ICOs in the British Indian Army: I believe that even after Independence, KCIOs were paid their pensions (and perhaps their salaries) in sterling. Also, the article says that "(KCIOs) had authority over British troops. In fact, most KCIOs served on attachment to a British unit early in their careers." I think this contrasts with the powers of ICOs, who did not, in practise, have authority over British troops (and officers) and who did not serve on attachment with British units. I will try and find outy more, and get some references for this. -- Kunal 14:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)