This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | A fact from Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 December 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Mifter: I was surprised to see you add a POV tag. The instructions at Template:POV require you to explain the POV issues on the talk page before placing the POV tag, which you have not done. Note also that that the POV label applies to the text of the article, not to sources. (See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV#Bias in sources). So just saying that the sources are biased is not enough. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray It is possible that the "thousand cuts" phrasing might have been invented by Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, but the ideas go back to the time of partition or even before. See:
Aparna Pande, cited in the lead, has an extensive discussion of how Pakistan's persistent goal has been to achieve "parity" with India, and such parity can be achieved only if India is cut down to size in some form. Muhammad Zubair, in a review of Christine Fair's Pakisan Army's Way of War, [1] says:
Most scholars see the Kashmir dispute as central to explaining the Army’s behavior. They claim that Pakistan will cease its adventurism in India and Afghanistan through its militant proxies once the Kashmir dispute is resolved. However, Fair challenges the conventional wisdom and asserts that Pakistan’s Army is locked in an ideational and civilizational battle with India and therefore will persist indefinitely. According to Fair, it will do anything at any price to undermine India’s rise in the region by bleeding it with a thousand cuts. She also argues that the Army will suffer any number of military defeats in its efforts to do so, because the Army does not consider military defeats at the hands of India as defeats in the conventional sense of the word. Rather, defeat means acquiescing to India or at least failing to put up a challenge.
I haven't read enough of Fair's book to gather this myself, but we can take Zubair's summary as being accurate of her views. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
I am afraid I can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Bhutto. Balbir Punj op-ed is no good. In 2014, Punj was more a BJP politician than a journalist. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I also can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Zia ul-Haq. The India Times article is really poor, and the Dogra book doesn't say very much. Jaffrelot confirms the strategy of "bleeding India" throughout the Zia regime, but it seems to have been mostly limited to Punjab and Kashmir. According to Kanwal [1] the "thousand cuts" started a "decade ago", i.e., around 1990. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I can certainly see that the "thousand cuts" phrase got used after 1990. I have provided a quotation from Hamid Gul. But we don't have comparable information for Zia ul-Haq. Zia did start the Punjab insurgency and he trained Kashmiri militants through Jamaat-e-Islami. (I have reliable information about it.) But I can't see a paradigm of "thousand cuts" being voiced by him. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there is enough evidence now that Bhutto had initiated the "thousand cuts" phraseology. The rest of the article needs to be adjusted to this fact. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@
Kautilya3:, @
DBigXray:
Currently on Wikipedia if you type
Death by a thousand cuts, it redirects to
Lingchi. There is also a disambiguation page for
Death by a thousand cuts (disambiguation).
So under the section of "Origins" -
Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, something should be mentioned that the concept of a "thousand cuts" is much older. A small line or two.
Also, there is an article in the DAWN titled "Death by a thousand cuts" dated May 05, 2009 which says the following:
Brig (r) M. Yousuf, head of the Afghan Bureau in the ISI from 1983 to 1987, has thrown light in his book on the strategy adopted by the CIA and the ISI to defeat the Soviets. It was “death by a thousand cuts,” which he states is a time-honoured tactic adopted by guerilla forces against conventional armies. [1]
So currently in the article the origin of the phrase just has to do with India and Pakistan. I think variations of the term should also be noted... What are your thoughts? Maybe including this can help reduce POV and bias that is being talked about in the template. Regards DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that "death by thousand cuts" is a widely used phrase in connection with the Afghan-Soviet War. There are tons of sources for it. I also know that, it was used earlier by Chairman Mao as his guerrilla warfare strategy against Nationalist China.
But the "bleeding India" terminology was apparently used by Pakistan much earlier than the Afghan war (from the 60s, in fact). After the Afghan war, they combined the two phrases. What they mean by it is still unclear. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In 1971, Bhutto tried to camouflage humiliation in Dhaka by promising a thousand years of war against India. Well, we still have 960 years left. No hurry, then, for a peace treaty. Implicit in the 1000-year threat is the recognition that Pakistan cannot win on the battlefield, since if you win war ceases. [2]
References
Even though this is off-topic, I don't agree that the thousand year war phrase is "well-referenced". Bhutto did say it, but in a speech where he was accepting a cease-fire for the 1965 Kashmir War. A scholar might regard it as a face-saving slogan meant for domestic consumption. Bhutto did not meddle in Kashmir after 1965 till his death. He is often described as a "demagogue". So we can't take his utterances at face value. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, Mifter has shared his concerns Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts. I am adding my comments to each one of these, appreciate if you guys can also review the same and suggest your opinions on this in these sub sections.
"The war clarified that Kashmir could no longer be taken from India by a conventional war." is cited to an article by a Major General in the Indian Army which is written with a pro-India tone and as an authoritative statement in the article should be qualified or bolstered with additional cites. - Mifter
The Pakistan Army’s humiliating surrender to India in Dhaka in 1971 led to the carving up of the country into two parts, one West Pakistan and the other Bangladesh. The defeat had two major effects: it convinced the Pakistan military that it could not beat its larger neighbor through conventional means alone, a realization that gave birth to its use of Islamist militant groups as proxies to try to bleed India; and it forced successive Pakistani governments to turn to Islam as a means of uniting the territory it had left. [1]
References
"Presently the Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, controlled by the ISI, have joined forces to carry out terrorist attacks on India." is cited to a book that describes the war as India's "triumphant victory" which had Pakistan "down on its knees" along with numerous other clearly pro-India remarks. - Mifter
Despite the fact that LeT and HuJI do not work together in Pakistan, where their sectarian and ideological differences keep them apart, such collaboration is not unusual when operating in India.75 Further, HuJI’s Bangladesh operations (HuJI-B) provide another safe haven for training and preparation as well as a point of infiltration into India. [1]
Given the objective of bleeding India through a thousand cuts... [...] ... LeT received assistance from its sponsors—including from ISI field stations in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh—in the form of operational funding, specialized weapons, sophisticated communications equipment, combat training, safe havens for the leadership, shelter and operational bases for the cadres, intelligence on targets and threats, campaign guidance, infiltration assistance, and, in coordination with the Pakistan Army, fire support when crossing the border into India. [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
January 2015
A Pakistani diplomat was withdrawn from Bangladesh on Saturday after intelligence dug out his involvement in terror financing and currency forgery racket...Mohammad Mazhar Khan, attaché at the consular section of Pakistan high commission in Dhaka, was also an agent of his country's secret service ISI, foreign ministry officials said...(Mazhar) used to channel the money earned through his currency scam to Hizb ut-Tahir, Ansarullah Bangla Team and Jamaat-e-Islami. [1]
December 2015
Pakistan has withdrawn a female diplomat from its high commission in Dhaka following allegations of financing terrorist activities in Bangladesh...Farina Arshad, second secretary (political) at the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh, was withdrawn...Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) operative Idris Sheikh was arrested on November 29 in the capital and he made the confessional statement on December 6. [2]
References
The Quote in the article. According to Pakistani commentator Pervez Hoodbhoy, "Pakistan's 'thousand cuts' policy is in shambles". [1] India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground. [1]
"India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground." needs additional citations in general, reads somewhat like an essay, and is presently cited to an article that reads like an op-ed in a section entitled "Views from Pakistan" with a subheadline that reads partly "two Pakistani commentators present the other side of the argument".-Mifter
Diplomatic pressure continues to build on Pakistan from the West and China to dismantle anti-India militant groups... [...] ... If one were to pinpoint the specific juncture at which Pakistan's foreign policy went awry, it would be the military decision in 1990 to ignore the recommendations of a task force that recommended that mujahidin returning from their successful war with the Soviets in Afghanistan be disarmed and prevented from transforming the Kashmir dispute into a violent jihad. [2]
During the General Assembly debate last month which was addressed by leaders from more than 100 countries, not a single country supported Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Unmindful of that, Lodhi reiterated her allegation with regard to non-implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir. [3]
Pakistan's third attempt to drag major world powers into the Kashmir issue seems to have borne little fruit...[...]...That Sharif's letter to the permanent five has won Pakistan almost no sympathy was apparent from the statements issued by Russia and France on the Uri terror attack, that either directly named Pakistan or Pakistan-based terrorist organizations...[...]... Pakistan's efforts to rope in nominal ally US too failed... Pakistan's 'all-weather friend' China too has had to take line of blanket opposition to terrorism. [4]
At a recent meeting of an international terrorist financing watchdog, Islamabad lost support of close allies China and Saudi Arabia, exposing the country to the risk of economic fallout... [...]... At the center of controversy is Pakistan-based Hafiz Saeed. India considers Saeed as one of its main rivals for supporting an armed uprising in India-controlled Kashmir and accuses him of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks, a charge he denies.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 the DYK has been approved and will be on the main page on 29 Dec as per the schedule listed at Queue 6, The DYK progress would not have been possible without the efforts put in by you guys in improving the article. Cheers and high 5. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, I was experimenting with maps and added one to the article, please share your opinion about the new additions. Some images may be helpful but not sure what kind of images can be added. Suggestions invited. regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The second map is good for now. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the article, it appears that all but a couple of the sources use the phrase "bleed India through a thousand cuts (rather than "bleed India with"). Also, almost all the sources use lowercase for the phrase. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"This (Jehadi) brand of terrorism is primarily sponsored by our neighbouring country in the west whose... policy is to conduct war against India by all other means and bleed us through a thousand cuts. This naturally includes the targeting of anything with a view to damaging, degrading or destroying the engines of economic growth and critical centres of power and strength of our country," Secretary (Internal Security) in the Union Home Ministry U K Bansal [1]
This article suffers from a lot of POV issues. The issue can be seen in the first line of the article. The line is written as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts is a military doctrine followed by Pakistan against India." However, none of the sources that follow are from the government of Pakistan. In fact, the source used explicitly use the wording 'a tactic described by several analysts as "bleed India through a thousand cuts"'. In other words this "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts" is the opinion of some analysts - as far as I know, official documents of the Pakistan government don't refer to it using those words.
The second POV problem is that many sources describe Pakistan's activites against India, but they don't even use the words "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts", or refer to any such doctrine. It is the POV of users on wikipedia whether a certain Pakistani action falls under this alleged doctrine or not - this is not directly supported by the sources. Thus, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
I'm putting a POV tag on the article until these issues are resolved. VR talk 04:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". The military doctrines that are part of top secret and confidential military strategy documents are not published for diplomatic reasons. Take an example of Cold Start (military doctrine), There is official government source stating that such a doctrine ever exists. In fact politicians and military officers have gone on record stating that no such policy exists, but the article exists (and without a POV tag) simply because there are reliable high quality sources that discuss the topic. If you are looking for Pakistani sources there are many, some of the good examples are below
References
This comment has been
moved from a user talk page, for discussion below.
Thanks
DiplomatTesterMan. There are significant quality issues with the article's content, some of which I will delve into later drawing on my editing experience. First and foremost is the lack of context, and recurrent levels of
synthesis. As mentioned above, if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply conclusion C. The problem here is – aside from the synthesis – even some of the sources are not satisfying the
threshold for reliability, given the nature of claims. I'm seeing some partisan sources quoted without
WP:ATTRIBUTION (a requirement), which is rather problematic. There is also one publisher used as a source
which is actually known for plagiarizing work.
Coming onto the content in question, the sentence on the "loss of Muslim support" and Saudi Arabia's "backing out" is a deliberate source misrepresentation, because the link it is cited to makes no mention of "Muslim" support, Saudi Arabia's issue, let alone Kashmir. It fails verification (and unfortunately was reinstated following Zakaria1978's revert). Even so, the link between Saudi Arabia, "Muslim support" etc. and the very specific subject in question ("bleed India") is not stated, hence the WP:SYNTH. On an off-note, the convincingly conclusive statement about "loss of Muslim support" (on Kashmir?) holds little ground, given how the Indian foreign ministry was exchanging squabbles with the OIC as recently as June ( Firstpost).
I also note that the links you shared above are opinion pieces, which reinforces my earlier point regarding the referencing; please note that WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Hope this helps, Mar4d ( talk) 13:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | A fact from Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 December 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Mifter: I was surprised to see you add a POV tag. The instructions at Template:POV require you to explain the POV issues on the talk page before placing the POV tag, which you have not done. Note also that that the POV label applies to the text of the article, not to sources. (See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV#Bias in sources). So just saying that the sources are biased is not enough. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray It is possible that the "thousand cuts" phrasing might have been invented by Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, but the ideas go back to the time of partition or even before. See:
Aparna Pande, cited in the lead, has an extensive discussion of how Pakistan's persistent goal has been to achieve "parity" with India, and such parity can be achieved only if India is cut down to size in some form. Muhammad Zubair, in a review of Christine Fair's Pakisan Army's Way of War, [1] says:
Most scholars see the Kashmir dispute as central to explaining the Army’s behavior. They claim that Pakistan will cease its adventurism in India and Afghanistan through its militant proxies once the Kashmir dispute is resolved. However, Fair challenges the conventional wisdom and asserts that Pakistan’s Army is locked in an ideational and civilizational battle with India and therefore will persist indefinitely. According to Fair, it will do anything at any price to undermine India’s rise in the region by bleeding it with a thousand cuts. She also argues that the Army will suffer any number of military defeats in its efforts to do so, because the Army does not consider military defeats at the hands of India as defeats in the conventional sense of the word. Rather, defeat means acquiescing to India or at least failing to put up a challenge.
I haven't read enough of Fair's book to gather this myself, but we can take Zubair's summary as being accurate of her views. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
I am afraid I can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Bhutto. Balbir Punj op-ed is no good. In 2014, Punj was more a BJP politician than a journalist. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I also can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Zia ul-Haq. The India Times article is really poor, and the Dogra book doesn't say very much. Jaffrelot confirms the strategy of "bleeding India" throughout the Zia regime, but it seems to have been mostly limited to Punjab and Kashmir. According to Kanwal [1] the "thousand cuts" started a "decade ago", i.e., around 1990. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
References
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I can certainly see that the "thousand cuts" phrase got used after 1990. I have provided a quotation from Hamid Gul. But we don't have comparable information for Zia ul-Haq. Zia did start the Punjab insurgency and he trained Kashmiri militants through Jamaat-e-Islami. (I have reliable information about it.) But I can't see a paradigm of "thousand cuts" being voiced by him. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there is enough evidence now that Bhutto had initiated the "thousand cuts" phraseology. The rest of the article needs to be adjusted to this fact. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@
Kautilya3:, @
DBigXray:
Currently on Wikipedia if you type
Death by a thousand cuts, it redirects to
Lingchi. There is also a disambiguation page for
Death by a thousand cuts (disambiguation).
So under the section of "Origins" -
Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, something should be mentioned that the concept of a "thousand cuts" is much older. A small line or two.
Also, there is an article in the DAWN titled "Death by a thousand cuts" dated May 05, 2009 which says the following:
Brig (r) M. Yousuf, head of the Afghan Bureau in the ISI from 1983 to 1987, has thrown light in his book on the strategy adopted by the CIA and the ISI to defeat the Soviets. It was “death by a thousand cuts,” which he states is a time-honoured tactic adopted by guerilla forces against conventional armies. [1]
So currently in the article the origin of the phrase just has to do with India and Pakistan. I think variations of the term should also be noted... What are your thoughts? Maybe including this can help reduce POV and bias that is being talked about in the template. Regards DiplomatTesterMan ( talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know that "death by thousand cuts" is a widely used phrase in connection with the Afghan-Soviet War. There are tons of sources for it. I also know that, it was used earlier by Chairman Mao as his guerrilla warfare strategy against Nationalist China.
But the "bleeding India" terminology was apparently used by Pakistan much earlier than the Afghan war (from the 60s, in fact). After the Afghan war, they combined the two phrases. What they mean by it is still unclear. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
In 1971, Bhutto tried to camouflage humiliation in Dhaka by promising a thousand years of war against India. Well, we still have 960 years left. No hurry, then, for a peace treaty. Implicit in the 1000-year threat is the recognition that Pakistan cannot win on the battlefield, since if you win war ceases. [2]
References
Even though this is off-topic, I don't agree that the thousand year war phrase is "well-referenced". Bhutto did say it, but in a speech where he was accepting a cease-fire for the 1965 Kashmir War. A scholar might regard it as a face-saving slogan meant for domestic consumption. Bhutto did not meddle in Kashmir after 1965 till his death. He is often described as a "demagogue". So we can't take his utterances at face value. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, Mifter has shared his concerns Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts. I am adding my comments to each one of these, appreciate if you guys can also review the same and suggest your opinions on this in these sub sections.
"The war clarified that Kashmir could no longer be taken from India by a conventional war." is cited to an article by a Major General in the Indian Army which is written with a pro-India tone and as an authoritative statement in the article should be qualified or bolstered with additional cites. - Mifter
The Pakistan Army’s humiliating surrender to India in Dhaka in 1971 led to the carving up of the country into two parts, one West Pakistan and the other Bangladesh. The defeat had two major effects: it convinced the Pakistan military that it could not beat its larger neighbor through conventional means alone, a realization that gave birth to its use of Islamist militant groups as proxies to try to bleed India; and it forced successive Pakistani governments to turn to Islam as a means of uniting the territory it had left. [1]
References
"Presently the Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, controlled by the ISI, have joined forces to carry out terrorist attacks on India." is cited to a book that describes the war as India's "triumphant victory" which had Pakistan "down on its knees" along with numerous other clearly pro-India remarks. - Mifter
Despite the fact that LeT and HuJI do not work together in Pakistan, where their sectarian and ideological differences keep them apart, such collaboration is not unusual when operating in India.75 Further, HuJI’s Bangladesh operations (HuJI-B) provide another safe haven for training and preparation as well as a point of infiltration into India. [1]
Given the objective of bleeding India through a thousand cuts... [...] ... LeT received assistance from its sponsors—including from ISI field stations in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh—in the form of operational funding, specialized weapons, sophisticated communications equipment, combat training, safe havens for the leadership, shelter and operational bases for the cadres, intelligence on targets and threats, campaign guidance, infiltration assistance, and, in coordination with the Pakistan Army, fire support when crossing the border into India. [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
January 2015
A Pakistani diplomat was withdrawn from Bangladesh on Saturday after intelligence dug out his involvement in terror financing and currency forgery racket...Mohammad Mazhar Khan, attaché at the consular section of Pakistan high commission in Dhaka, was also an agent of his country's secret service ISI, foreign ministry officials said...(Mazhar) used to channel the money earned through his currency scam to Hizb ut-Tahir, Ansarullah Bangla Team and Jamaat-e-Islami. [1]
December 2015
Pakistan has withdrawn a female diplomat from its high commission in Dhaka following allegations of financing terrorist activities in Bangladesh...Farina Arshad, second secretary (political) at the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh, was withdrawn...Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) operative Idris Sheikh was arrested on November 29 in the capital and he made the confessional statement on December 6. [2]
References
The Quote in the article. According to Pakistani commentator Pervez Hoodbhoy, "Pakistan's 'thousand cuts' policy is in shambles". [1] India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground. [1]
"India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground." needs additional citations in general, reads somewhat like an essay, and is presently cited to an article that reads like an op-ed in a section entitled "Views from Pakistan" with a subheadline that reads partly "two Pakistani commentators present the other side of the argument".-Mifter
Diplomatic pressure continues to build on Pakistan from the West and China to dismantle anti-India militant groups... [...] ... If one were to pinpoint the specific juncture at which Pakistan's foreign policy went awry, it would be the military decision in 1990 to ignore the recommendations of a task force that recommended that mujahidin returning from their successful war with the Soviets in Afghanistan be disarmed and prevented from transforming the Kashmir dispute into a violent jihad. [2]
During the General Assembly debate last month which was addressed by leaders from more than 100 countries, not a single country supported Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Unmindful of that, Lodhi reiterated her allegation with regard to non-implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir. [3]
Pakistan's third attempt to drag major world powers into the Kashmir issue seems to have borne little fruit...[...]...That Sharif's letter to the permanent five has won Pakistan almost no sympathy was apparent from the statements issued by Russia and France on the Uri terror attack, that either directly named Pakistan or Pakistan-based terrorist organizations...[...]... Pakistan's efforts to rope in nominal ally US too failed... Pakistan's 'all-weather friend' China too has had to take line of blanket opposition to terrorism. [4]
At a recent meeting of an international terrorist financing watchdog, Islamabad lost support of close allies China and Saudi Arabia, exposing the country to the risk of economic fallout... [...]... At the center of controversy is Pakistan-based Hafiz Saeed. India considers Saeed as one of its main rivals for supporting an armed uprising in India-controlled Kashmir and accuses him of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks, a charge he denies.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 the DYK has been approved and will be on the main page on 29 Dec as per the schedule listed at Queue 6, The DYK progress would not have been possible without the efforts put in by you guys in improving the article. Cheers and high 5. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, I was experimenting with maps and added one to the article, please share your opinion about the new additions. Some images may be helpful but not sure what kind of images can be added. Suggestions invited. regards. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. The second map is good for now. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the article, it appears that all but a couple of the sources use the phrase "bleed India through a thousand cuts (rather than "bleed India with"). Also, almost all the sources use lowercase for the phrase. Gatoclass ( talk) 08:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"This (Jehadi) brand of terrorism is primarily sponsored by our neighbouring country in the west whose... policy is to conduct war against India by all other means and bleed us through a thousand cuts. This naturally includes the targeting of anything with a view to damaging, degrading or destroying the engines of economic growth and critical centres of power and strength of our country," Secretary (Internal Security) in the Union Home Ministry U K Bansal [1]
This article suffers from a lot of POV issues. The issue can be seen in the first line of the article. The line is written as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts is a military doctrine followed by Pakistan against India." However, none of the sources that follow are from the government of Pakistan. In fact, the source used explicitly use the wording 'a tactic described by several analysts as "bleed India through a thousand cuts"'. In other words this "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts" is the opinion of some analysts - as far as I know, official documents of the Pakistan government don't refer to it using those words.
The second POV problem is that many sources describe Pakistan's activites against India, but they don't even use the words "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts", or refer to any such doctrine. It is the POV of users on wikipedia whether a certain Pakistani action falls under this alleged doctrine or not - this is not directly supported by the sources. Thus, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
I'm putting a POV tag on the article until these issues are resolved. VR talk 04:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.". The military doctrines that are part of top secret and confidential military strategy documents are not published for diplomatic reasons. Take an example of Cold Start (military doctrine), There is official government source stating that such a doctrine ever exists. In fact politicians and military officers have gone on record stating that no such policy exists, but the article exists (and without a POV tag) simply because there are reliable high quality sources that discuss the topic. If you are looking for Pakistani sources there are many, some of the good examples are below
References
This comment has been
moved from a user talk page, for discussion below.
Thanks
DiplomatTesterMan. There are significant quality issues with the article's content, some of which I will delve into later drawing on my editing experience. First and foremost is the lack of context, and recurrent levels of
synthesis. As mentioned above, if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply conclusion C. The problem here is – aside from the synthesis – even some of the sources are not satisfying the
threshold for reliability, given the nature of claims. I'm seeing some partisan sources quoted without
WP:ATTRIBUTION (a requirement), which is rather problematic. There is also one publisher used as a source
which is actually known for plagiarizing work.
Coming onto the content in question, the sentence on the "loss of Muslim support" and Saudi Arabia's "backing out" is a deliberate source misrepresentation, because the link it is cited to makes no mention of "Muslim" support, Saudi Arabia's issue, let alone Kashmir. It fails verification (and unfortunately was reinstated following Zakaria1978's revert). Even so, the link between Saudi Arabia, "Muslim support" etc. and the very specific subject in question ("bleed India") is not stated, hence the WP:SYNTH. On an off-note, the convincingly conclusive statement about "loss of Muslim support" (on Kashmir?) holds little ground, given how the Indian foreign ministry was exchanging squabbles with the OIC as recently as June ( Firstpost).
I also note that the links you shared above are opinion pieces, which reinforces my earlier point regarding the referencing; please note that WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Hope this helps, Mar4d ( talk) 13:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)