![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An edit was made regarding how the war started: Tribesmen had invaded Kashmir because of Muslims being massacred (some of them also had family ties to Kashmiris who were being massacred). They didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Kashmir for no reason. You can check the exact wording of the edit for yourself. Initially, the source for that information was this article. Within less than an hour Kautilya3 removed it, claiming the source was not a good one. Going by what feedback was provided, I provided a source in accordance to what requirements were set. However, within one minute, Kautilya3 reverted it it yet again, despite there being a reliable source, now with the reason of edit warring. The reason the first edit was removed was due to what Kautilya3 claimed was a bad source and justified complete removal of the information. However, even with a source that fits requirements, Kautilya3 almost instantly reverted the edit, and then proceeded to place the blame me for edit warring. I'd agree the first edit being reverted, but I fail to understand why the second one being reverted in the name of edit warring from me is justified, as the only issue brought up with the previous edit had been solved with a reliable source. Wouldn't attempting to paint Pakistan as a plain aggressor by removing mentions of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir which led up to the war not be considered neutral? I understand Kautilya3 is an Indian and we all have our biases, whether we realise it or not. So why not bring it up on the talk page for discussion instead of instantly reverting the edit that you disagreed with and engaging in edit warring?
Re12345 ( talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Xeed.rice, this page is on discretionary sanctions (as it says so in one of the banners at the top). You need to be confident that you can obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before you decide to make them, and you need to explain your rationale clearly in your edit summaries.
Why did you change the images in the infobox? What makes you think that the images you installed are in the "public domain"? And where did the upper image come from? It is not in the website you mentioned as the source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Extendon, This is entirely inappropriate in the context of this article, even if it were true. Please see reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
To prevent vandalism, I am requesting to change the protection to Extended confirmed protection or least Semi protect.â¯â¯â¯ Praveg A=9.8 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Mehtar10, You have been WP:edit warring over dubious revisions to the lead. Your first source is a letter by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used. The second source is a book plagiarising Wikipedia.
Moreover, the MOS:LEAD is expected to summarise the body of the article. You are not permitted to introduce new contentious material in the lead. Please discuss your issues here, instead of WP:edit warring. All edits to this page are subject to WP:discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Just want to point out that British Indian Army Veterans were on both sides, not just India. Brig. Habibur Rehman for example was a British Indian Army Veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5820:6A20:6C8F:EC9B:14E4:2679 ( talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this article which is cited as a Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one. The article was published in 2014, while India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace was published in 1998, 16 years earlier. The claim of 6000 Pakistani soldiers killed originated from an Indian source.
This article states that there are no reliable figures on Pakistani casualties
This article states 1500 soldiers died on each side
It seems like the author of the The News International article just wrote whatever casualty figure they could find, and since there is no figure other than the Indian claim, they ended up writing that.
So I don't think labelling the figure of 6000 killed as a Pakistani claim is correct. I cannot find a Pakistani source other than this article that supports these figures. SpicyBiryani (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Isra2003memon, you have been inserting "Pakistani victory" in the result field using your WP:Original research arguments. I am afraid this is not proper. Only facts mentioned in reliable sources can be added to Wikipedia. Given the contentious nature of the topic, multiple reliable sources would be needed to decide the result field. Please provide reliable sources for the content, or self-revert it. This page is covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3, you are an Indian and you are making changes on this article to make your country of India appear in a better light. You should not be making changes on a Wikipedia article that favor your country which includes fake statements that are made to make you happy. All sources should be provided before you make such changes and your stance should be neutral and apart from your personal opinion. I noticed that you made many changes that alter history to favor India. Please refrain from using your personal perceptions and your pro-India opinions when editing articles.
![]() | You used the {{
Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{
Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the
Teahouse, the
help desk, or join
Wikipedia's Live Help
IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click
here for instant access to the channel. |
The toolbox info is incorrect as it says that GB was annexed by Pakistan. GB was not annexed, rather it was acceded to Pakistan by the locals. According to various scholars, the people of Gilgit as well as those of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin, Punial, Hunza and Nagar joined Pakistan by choice and the Gilgit scouts willingly fought alongside Pakistan and the princely state of Chitral against the Indian/Dogra occupation. I have decided to delete the toolbox with the statement that GB was annexed because that is a false statement as Gilgit and its neighboring states signed a combined instrument of accession to Pakistan on November 18th 1947. Seeing the pro-Pakistani sentiment amongst the people of Gilgit, it is baseless to call it an annexation, also the fact that the Gilgit Scouts fought alongside Pakistan proves that GB had very strong pro-Pakistani sentiments. On the other hand could the same be said about India in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh? Did it have the favor of it's people? It was India that had annexed two thirds of Kashmir via an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator (Maharaja Singh) which was not favored by it's people. When a dictator accedes the territory that doesn't belong to him to another country without the approval of it's people, that is illegal annexation. India acted on an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator, what gives the right for one single man to decide the fate of millions? Pakistan was clearly the liberator.
See references:
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269, S2CID 159652497
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (9 January 2016). "Gilgit-Baltistan—part of Pakistan by choice". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2017. Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.
Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004). Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 309–. ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2.
Mahmud, Ershad (2008), "The Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Package 2007: Background, Phases and Analysis", Policy Perspectives, 5 (1): 23–40, JSTOR 42909184
Sokefeld, Martin (November 2005), "From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan" (PDF), The Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4): 939–973, doi:10.1017/S0021911805002287, S2CID 161647755
Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, I.B.Tauris, 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman1993 ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that a number of citations have been added to this source:
It is an unknown author and the short 1 page article has numerous errors:
Errors go on like this. I am removing all citations to this source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironman993, you added this bit to the lead: On 22 October 1947, amidst Pakistani fears of the Maharaja potentially acceding his Muslim-majority princely state to India
(the war was launched).
On the face of it, it is true that Pakistan had such fears. But you can't make it look like a justification for the war. The Maharaja was at liberty to accede to whichever dominion he chose, according the 3 June Plan that was accepted by both the sets of leaders. Jinnah is on record as having explicitly acknowledged it. (I can dig up quotations for you, if you would like.) And let us also note that Jinnah accepted the accession of a Hindu-majority state prior to this, i.e., Pakistan had secular pretensions at this stage.
Secondly, the Maharaja could not have acceded to India without the support of Sheikh Abdullah. And Abdullah was open to negotiation with Pakistan. But Jinnah refused to negotiate with him! [1] So just "fears" don't cut it. This is a WP:POV edit. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Kautilya3 Historically the justification of the war was because of concerns that the Maharaja would accede the state to India. The Maharajah earlier had dismissed all his pro-Pakistani politicians and on 11 August, he dismissed his pro-Pakistan Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak, and appointed an Indian retired Major Janak Singh in his place. This was very alarming. On the same day, the Jammu Muslim Conference wrote to the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan warning him that "if, God forbid, the Pakistan Government or the Muslim League do not act, Kashmir might be lost to them". So yes there were ongoing fears that the Maharajah would accede the Muslim majority state to India and because of that we could safely say that was the justification. Sheikh Abdullah represented the valley not the entirety of Kashmir, he also supported Congress of India, so his support for India would not have changed anything because he was just one politicians, the vast majority of Kashmiris who were Muslim did not favor the states accession to India. A plebiscite should have been held regardless of the views that individual politicians held. Earlier India had illegally annexed Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis that they were Hindu majority. If we are to apply the same logic here, then why should a Muslim Majority Kashmir go to India? It should go to Pakistan just like Hindu majority Hyderabad and Junagad went to India.
Further on, it was just not Pakistan who had fears of the Maharaja acceding the state to India, after all it was the Jammu conference that had initially wrote letters to the then PM Liaquat Ali Khan warning him about a possible accession to India. That said, the majority of Muslim Kashmiris did not favor the states accession to India, many Muslim Kashmiris fought against Indian occupation forces during this war, as such India should have never accepted the accession and should have stood by a plebiscite. In conclusion the justification for the war is entirely based on the fact that the Maharaja was planning to accede to India due to all the revolts and uprisings he was facing in his state. The removal of his pro-Pakistani politicians with pro-Indian also hinted the fact that he was planning on acceding to India if not immediately, some time later on down the road.
India had annexed Hyderabad even though the Nizam Osman Ali Khan chose to remain independent. Why did India invade Hyderabad when the Nizam chose to remain independent? Now you question why Pakistan invaded Kashmir? The answer is simple, the Maharaja was planning to accede the state to India and there were concerns of it due to his inability to control the Muslim revolts and uprisings in Kashmir.
Even for the sake of argument, if the fear of Maharaja's potential accession to India was not the crux of Pakistan's concern in the war, even then Pakistan is fully within it's rights to invade Kashmir just like how India had invaded Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis they were Hindu majority. Pakistan entering Kashmir on the basis it was a Muslim majority state shouldn't be surprising considering the fact that India did the exact same thing when it invaded and annexed Hyderabad and Junagad. Ironman993 ( talk)
References:
Jha, Prem Shankar (March 1998), "Response (to the reviews of The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947)", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 113–123, doi:10.1080/14662049808447762
Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India 2010, p. 103. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 ( talk • contribs)
Ironman993, please focus on the issue at hand (not Hyderabad or Junagadh), and use WP:RS to back up your assertions. Also, avoid WP:SOAPBOXing, like speaking of "rights". Wikipedia does not argue, or pronounce judgements; it only provides information based on RS.
The Muslim Conference letter you mention (have you read it actually?) doesn't ask Pakistan to invade Kashmir. It was only seeking negotiations or perhaps political pressure, because Jinnah at that time had a non-interference policy. But Muslim Conference was not the only party in the state. National Conference was the other. Sheikh Abdullah led the National Conference. In order to acquire Kashmir, Pakistan would have needed to negotiate with both of them and buy their acceptance. But Pakistan refused to negotiate with Abdullah. I have provided an RS for that. So it is not as simple as "Maharaja and fears". Pakistan chose to use force instead of political negotiations. The agency rests with Pakistan. It wasn't "fears". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947 says on page 19 ...it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision-maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory
. That's not referencing Pakistani victory. In the absence of a full quote from the other claimed reference, I have removed the claim entirely. I have also removed the result from the lead entirely pending discussion on how it can be phrased properly. ] The result of the war was inconclusive. However, most neutral assessments agree that India was the victor of the war
is an absurd construction. If most neutral assessments agree that India won (and looking at the quotes provided that does appear to be the case) then it wasn't inconclusive.
FDW777 (
talk)
14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Before the INA was present on Indian category, why was it moved to Pakistan? Instead of INA shown under Pakistan category, it should be British Indian Army not INA. INA was purely a India thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In the "Territorial changes" section, the infobox states, "Pakistan controls roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India controls the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh"
However, this wording, as well as its source, refers to the present boundaries of Kashmir, rather than the changes that took place as a result of the war.
Shouldn't it say something along the lines of "Pakistan gains control of/captured roughly a third of Kashmir, whereas India retained the rest"Â ? Cipher21 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Those maps of the various battles are very bad on the eyes, do they actually do any good? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
MBlaze Lightning, S. J. Thapa was a prominent and decorated commander who was responsible for commanding the year long defence and fall of Skardu, the largest city in the Gilgit-Baltistan/ Ladakh region. Please explain why you think he's too irrelevant to include in the infobox. Cipher21 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as commanders are concerned, the instructions currently specify that the field should include "the commanders of the military forces involved" and that "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed"; but defining "commander" and "prominent" more precisely has intentionally been left to the subject experts for each particular topic. The end result needs to be helpful to the reader; beyond that, trying to develop a one-size-fits-all rule to things like this doesn't strike me as a particularly useful thing to do.
prominentor not — relevant details are at Sher Jung Thapa and Siege of Skardu. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article.In its present form, it does more to confuse rather than aid the understanding of the reader. The article itself gives a very superficial summary of the war itself, which is supposed to be the primary topic of the article. It gives no perspective of the scale of the engagement. Back to the infobox, all of this flagcruft is about as useful as bunting at a football match and is quite inappropriate. More to the point, about 80% of the leaders on both sides are only mentioned in the infobox. Their mention is not supported by the article at all and should be struck from the infobox. Just because a reference exists does not mean that it should be included. Further, in the case of K. M. Cariappa, their contribution to the war (according to the article) was to change the name of an operation:
Operation Duck, the earlier epithet for this assault, was renamed as Operation Bison by Cariappa.This is a war that was presumably fought by corps or even army sized formations. IAW the template documentation, these are the sort of commanders that might be listed, along with the national leaders - political and military. To the matter of Thapa, at least he gets more than a passing mention but he is hardly in the league of generals. If the sources (and subsequently the article) say that he had a pivotal role in the outcome of the war, he might rate a place. They don't. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Kashmir Valley the tribal forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north, Skardu was brought under siege by the Gilgit Scouts.[113]
The Kashmir State army was able to defend Skardu from the Gilgit Scouts impeding their advance down the Indus valley towards Leh. In August the Chitral Scouts and Chitral Bodyguard under Mata ul-Mulk besieged Skardu and with the help of artillery were able to take Skardu. This freed the Gilgit Scouts to push further into Ladakh.[115][116]
The Pakistani attacked the Skardu on 10 February 1948 which was repulsed by the Indian soldiers.[118] Thereafter, the Skardu Garrison was subjected to continuous attacks by the Pakistan Army for the next three months and each time, their attack was repulsed by the Colonel Sher Jung Thapa and his men.[118] Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment.[119] On 14 August Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army[120] and raiders after a year long siege.[121]
Following from the main discussion, I have
removed some commanders from the infobox with this comment: Fixing infobox bloat. RM commanders whose inclusion is not supported by mention elsewhere in the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article.
This was
reverted by
Kautilya3. The infobox should and must reasonably reflect the body of the article. What goes in the infobox should naturally follow the article. It doesn't. My edit addresses only one of the many issues with the infobox. There is a similar issue with combatants and an issue with flag icons which, at the very least, are inaccurate.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Any list information should be reasonably completeis not an accepted/acceptable argument under guideline or policy. Indiscriminate information is a disservice to the reader. The advice is to limit the list to the prominent or notable leaders. This is a "bloated" list and the article does not show at all why those deleted are prominent or notable. The course is to improve the article. It is not to retain that which is "poor" just because it exists. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "the Maharaja unleased a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." to "the Maharaja unleashed a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." Abhaykashyapnvn ( talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So many Indians with fake claims always talk about their victory in all wars. But here I will only talk about the topic related war which is 1947-48 war. They are every where to prove their fake victory. I have readed the history not only Indian version but Pakistani and natural versions too. And I'm not going into deep conversations. I'll make it so simple and understandable. Pakistan in 1947-48 captured most of the kashmir which india also claims as their territory later, Now whatever the reasons behind Pakistan captured kashmir and whatever the reasons behind India claiming as whole kashmir as their I'm not going into this bla bla bla... The point is Pakistan occupied the territory which india claims as their. So its enough to say Pakistan won 1947-48 war. First of all Indians need to understand wars causes damage to both sides but India also lost the territories which they claims as their despite having accession of Raja. In my point of view India lost that war with a great damage, And Pakistan won. Ali Shah (Markhor) ( talk) 12:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Cinderella157: and @
Truthwins018:- Do not edit war. As per discretionary sanctions, you may be blocked from editing this article permanently if you continue this behaviour. If you have been reverted, achieve consensus before attempting to enforce your edits.
I recommend that these edits be reverted till the time a consensus is achieved, if anyone has a counter-view kindly say so. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Info box mentions casualties of both sides Indian and Pakistan as 1,104 and 6000 respectively.
The 6000 figure is highly questionable and isn't mentioned in any press release by the ISPR
[1].
Presenting a staunch figure seems illogical as the war included many combined fractions and is not well documented in terms of casualty count. Global security
[2] is a comparatively trusted source (not the best offcourse) and is neutral.
I propose its mentioning with a change from 6000 to 1500-6000. New section is added due to lack of concensus in an earlier section
Truthwins018 (
talk)
20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Going by the sources on the internet, and the time of this war, none of the sources can be deemed reliable [3]. The 6000 casualties source is cited by an article of The News [4] doesn't make it certain where the casualty is cited from and seems to be picked on the internet by the writer (probably wikipedia). The best source on the internet is surely provided by the Federal research division of the libary of congress [5] which somewhat passes the neutrality factor aswell. Globalresearch.org has been deemed questionable but why is its quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [6] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar [7] not questioned ? 1,500 certainly deserves to be included in the info box, as a somewhat acceptable term. [8] Truthwins018 ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
So far reaching consensus on quoting of figures 1500-6000 for Pakistani casualties citing this source
this source. Would like to know if anyone disagrees
Truthwins018 (
talk)
19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the 6000 figure originates from Indian sources and The News source looks like
WP:CIRC. We should label it as an Indian claim, and the 1500 one as a neutral one, as on other war articles.
Cipher21
(talk)
04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As no obvious consensus is reached on global security being unreliable and it quoting figures from this source at page 571, it seems obvious to quote them so far. As Cipher21 and Cinderella157 have mentioned, the info box should be changed showing various figures. I propose figures being quoted as 1500 estimate on both indian and pakistani sides as a neutral claim and 6000 casualties as indian claim. this source source by far is the most trustworthy keeping in view the years of the event and the neutrality of the source. Truthwins018 ( talk) 13:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Kautilya3 you seem to have randomly jumped in the discussion without going through all of it. Kindly go through all to know that global security.org also quotes some other source which seems reputable neutral source at page 571 as quoted by Cinderella157 and the reliability of global security.org has also been discussed and consensus is reached upon by 2-3 users already Truthwins018 ( talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have added ~1,500 killed to both sides, citing Heitzman and Worden (eds). Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the handbook seems pretty reasonable in the case of this event and the sources available. It is the only neutral casualty figure available and also worked upon by the Federal Research Division of Congress. It directly mentions the figures so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cannot imply. The 6000 casualty figure also has no reference to any source e.g from the ISPR. It is thus that it is available also in the estimated range of casualty figures, although i believe it should be mentioned under a subtitle of indian claimed Truthwins018 ( talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible; you may have comprehension problems, that doesn't preclude others from calibrating a source. Kerberous ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information in the source neutral source is definetely not impyling WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It would seem to imply if the source was on some other country and mentioning thus the information. The source clearly is on one of the participating countries of the war and under a section on National Security. It also mentions all the other Indo-Pak wars. It is fine to present the source as an estimate from 1500-6000. The 6000 figures also seem dubious and WP:BIASED. Even citation of The News source looks like WP:CIRC as mentioned by Cipher21. No official statementhas been given by Pakistani authorities to ascertain the casualty figure. The 1,500 source is cited here [ [1]] and on global security.org which has quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [9] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar [10] including reuters as SpicyBiryani has mentioned earlier. Truthwins018 ( talk) 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear from any of the sources just what these figures represent (ie the context). In each case, there are "official" casualties of the two national militaries but there are also military casualties that were not officially part of the two national militaries. I would suspect that the lower figures (ie 1000-1500) are the "official" casualties. The 6000 figure is likely the total combatant figure for Pakistan. The total for India might be similarly higher if it were to include the Kashmir state forces etc. This is of course my assessment and counts for naught at the end of the day. We must rely on the sources that we have - as imperfect as they might be. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my unexplained revert but it was done by mistake. It has already been explained by
Cinderella157 and is definetely inspiring confidence. The reasons have clearly been stated. In this topic, it is only neutral to state it as an estimate of both. Read the above discussion. You changed the article without actually making a point. Opinion doesn't carry weight here. Hope you understand
WP:OR
Truthwins018 (
talk)
17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) and whether it is sufficiently reliable to support the I made has been referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for comment. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The RfC has now been closed. This was a technical close that the source was considered unreliable, more for the lack of evidence that it is a WP:RS than that the evidence doesn't exist:
... does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work).
Some post close comments evidence that these requirements can be easily met. [2], [3], [4] My own searches would indicate that the editors (those exercising oversight) are considered eminent in respect to south Asian history and like. It appears clear that the closers rational for making their close could be readily addressed. On the otherhand, the discussion at WP:RSN raised significant concerns with the other sources being used to support the casualty figures reported - ie that none of the sources are adequate for the purpose of reporting casualty figures. Consequently, there would appear to be a couple of courses open from here:
Option 4 is clearly the best path but it assumes that such sources do exist and I'm not certain they do since it is reasonable to assume that they would have been found and used by now if they did. There is probably going to be a lot of argument against option 3 - not because it isn't an appropriate course but because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is common sense in preferring option 2 over option 1. Option 5 assumes that nobody is going to advance option 1. Comments on how to proceed please. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
@ Cinderella157: I also checked the RSN result and it seems that the source is indeed unreliable. Nobody except you, one user and a sock puppet ever agreed here with that source anyway against numerous editors who opposed the inclusion all the time so I think you are better off moving away from this part of the topic per WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 06:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
In sum, while the numerical margin against reliability was small, the arguments in favor of reliability objectively did not meet the bar set in WP:RS, which is a requirement for inclusion as documented at WP:V. It is possible that editors may, in the future, bring forward new information about the source that convinces other editors that it meets the requirements of WP:RS; consensus can change.The post close discussion (ping MGetudiant, John M Baker and Tayi Arajakate who contributed there, and the closer Levivich) clearly indicate that the technical reasons for the close could readily be satisfied.
This is what I wrote at the RfC:
Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:
During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed. [1]
- So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379
It is possible that all the Indian military writers just reported their own casualties and ignored those of the State Forces. If that is supposed to be reasonable, then by the same count, it would also be reasonable to count only Pakistani Army casualties like the US Federal Research Division did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. Pr0pulsion 123 ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/war-image-gallery.php Pr0pulsion 123 ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "leaders" mentioned in the infobox include the relevant heads of states? Both countries at the time were dominions, so they had a king.
-- 93.35.218.101 ( talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please re-add the campaignbox. Re12345 ( talk) 07:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prior to May 1948, the regular Pakistan Army did not fight in the war; only irregular forces did. The infobox should mention this in such a manner:
Extended content
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joooshhh ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mehndar Valley.[94], the cited source being Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 65–67. Re12345 ( talk) 07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit on the grounds that, even if Pakistan troops were not deployed in Kashmir prior to May 1948, the Pakistan Army was fully involved. Here are some extracts from General Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain's talk at an ISPR-organised conference: [8]
"When Quaid-e-Azam was briefed about all this [on or around 27 October 1947], he kept quiet, General Gracey then asked his permission to draw his own plan."
"The first thing after this conversation was selection of suitable officers. officers were picked up from the army. Brigadier Akbar had served with General Gracey on the Burma front and was recommended for Victoria Cross but was awarded D.S.O. due to lack of evidence. A cell for planning on Kashmir was created in Military Operations Directorate under Brigadier Sher Khan. Similarly a branch under Adjutant General was opened which was assigned the job of selecting those officers who had been associated with Kashmir or the State forces. Such officers were sent to assist the Mujahideen and were shown as retired or absent without leave".
General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day. Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes. Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali. Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Supported by:
|
References
1947 mirpur massacre leads to a different event. 2A02:A44D:E8B0:1:258D:6D40:804E:C29 ( talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Your edit reverted more than just infobox edits. Why Indian gain (which is bigger) shouldn't be entered first? Not to mention that India is described as the victor of this war by many sources. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Pakistan refused to reconcile itself to the loss of much of Kashmir
Indian troops reached Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir first, and thus they controlled most of Kashmir. The Pakistanis only were able to seize one third of Kashmir.
When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percent of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million was Muslim. [...] Indian forces won most of Kashmir.
India also seized most of Kashmir but at the cost of creating an intractable problem that has poisoned relations with Pakistan to the present day.
Auchinleck's refusal to allow British participation in Kashmir perhaps proved decisive in the military conflict as India took control of most of Kashmir.
The result was a war where India holds most of Kashmir, but Pakistan gained a share of it.
Most of Kashmir fell to Indian control, while Pakistan gains one-third of the region." This is what I am still proposing. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 09:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder [1] [2]IMHO, this is a summary that best conforms to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. To the result, I believe that this has been flogged to death, resuscitated and flogged to death again. It is an ex parrot. Neither side got what they wanted. Both sides got something before the UN stepped in. Per MOS:MIL an appropriate result would be the see aftermath section option - the nearest existing section being the Moves up to cease-fire section but that isn't great. The alternative is to omit the result parameter. IMHO, the status quo (
United Nations-mediated ceasefire) is a reasonable WP:IAR alternative to the guidance at MOS:MIL. However, the dot-points that follow are intricate detail and I have removed these as being inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and usage of the result parameter per MOS:MIL. I would suggest that the article could be improved by expanding detail on the cease-fire and aftermath that would address some of the detail mentioned. I have retitled two sections as a start. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder, since the war was fought over the principality. Kautilya3, do you see any issue with this? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over the majority of territory". Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Indian forces won control of most of Kashmir
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should mention in the lead and background section that Hari Singh slaughtered 100,000+ Kashmiri Muslims in "revenge" for their dissent [1] and to change the demographics of the region [2] [3] [4], which fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of. [5] [6] Solblaze ( talk) 10:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
...the tale of a massacre of Muslims produced the Kashmir disupte
After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)The killings triggered a series of events, including a war between two newly independent nations of India and Pakistan, which gave birth to Kashmir dispute.
The tale of a massacre of Muslims caused a chain of events that produced the Kashmir disputemy bad on not copying this quote properly initially - the text was not copy paste-able
This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.Solblaze ( talk) 06:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Copying below a couple of timeline entries from the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict:
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
false propaganda? Solblaze ( talk) 11:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I have been pinged. For the record, I have no nationalistic ties to the subject and to that extent, my observations are objective. I declined the original edit request because it was insufficiently precise as to what was to be added where. I have since kept a watch on this discussion. I observe that the citations are not as complete as they might be. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the proposed text is fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of
, which cites two sources. I cannot access the first. For the second, the hyperlink is to the home page of Frontline and an extensive search by author and title does not reveal the cited article. The assertion by
Solblaze is that there was a direct causative effect between the
1947 Jammu massacres and the
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. The opposition by
Kautilya3 is that there was not. Solblaze has cited sources and provided quote snippets to support their assertion. For myself, I am uncomfortable making an assessment based on quotes alone without the fuller context in which they were made. I have considered the following articles:
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948,
1947 Jammu massacres,
1947 Poonch rebellion and
Kashmir conflict. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is part of the ongoing Kashmir conflict. The partition, rebellion, massacares and first war arguably initiated the conflict. Hence, where sources might assert that [t]hey [including the 1947 Jammu massacres] instigated the ongoing dispute
, it does not necessarily mean that they instigated the first war since the dispute is much greater than the first war. That is why the fuller context of a quote is important.
The proposal is to assert a causative relationship: that the massacres were a cause of the first war. To even entertain such a case, the massacres must precede the war and even then, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a caution. In respect to establishing clear timelines leading up to the start of the war on 22 October 1947, the articles are quite poor. The Poonch rebellion, between June 1947 – October 1947 clearly predates the official start of the war. There is also a clear causative link between the rebellion, Indian intervention and the start of the war. The massacres occurred between October 1947 – November 1947, with the first indication being 14 October. They certainly don't appear to cause the rebellion (the rebellion predates the massacre) and are more likely to be a response to the rebellion - with both being a response/result of partition. While the massacres may have slightly preceded the start of the war I am not seeing a reasonable case for asserting they were a cause of the first war. On the otherhand, I am seeing a reasonably likely case to assert they were causative of the Kashmir conflict, along with the other events (the partition, rebellion, massacares and first war) but the conflict is not synonymous with the first war.
Consequently, on the information before me, and having given full consideration to all of that information to the extent I am able, I cannot action the change, even if it were to be more precise as to what was to be added where. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics.- from BBC - combined with Al Jazeera stating the same, and Snedden writing that the wider conflict was sparked by outrage at the killings of Muslims should be sufficient (I believe I provided a url to Snedden in my citations)
There are two reasons why this massacre, if it occurred, is important.I would tend to agree. While it is clear that Pakistan planned an uprising, massacre/s and/or riots against Muslims would have played to such a plan. Sneddon likely refers to events around the 1947 Poonch rebellion. This article presently states:
"exaggerated reports of events in Poonch circulated in these Pakistan districts in which State troops are cited as the aggressors."In light of Sneddon (and any other good quality sources on this), we might modify what the article has to say but the 1947 Poonch rebellion is the main article for those events. However, without the benefit of the full text (and the full context of what is said), I leave this as might - particularly given that Sneddon has stated
if it occurred. If you have access to the full journal article and/or an excerpt of the book, I would appreciate you emailing me a copy. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Noorani2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By changing the result to Indian Victory a previous RFC held here is being refuted. To change the result a new RFC should be held, till then the result should be reverted back to this revision as it complies with the aforementioned RFC. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:6865:FDB9:935A:F004 ( talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian victory is unreliable to add in this page as many sources, people, and simple facts show pakistan as won but the same is for the other side so i request you to instead add it as no clear winner Pajeetspotter ( talk) 12:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Indian victory" in the result to "UN-mandated ceasefire" and "See aftermath". The topic of the result is highly contentious as evident in the talk page, and the current result was only changed recently and facing mass crticism. The current result fails MOS:MIL and when the user who made the edit was confronted, he simply ignored the message and made a minor edit after the confrontation, making it evident he ignored it. This topic is highly contentious and the citing of a military stalemate with one side having the slight upper hand as a total victory is incorrect and a fallacy, and the updated result has faced massive contention with multiple people criticizing. I request that after "UN-mandated ceasefire" be "See aftermath" to align with MOS:MIL, and show the situation of both parties at the time of the ceasefire. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert to this revision. The current version aftermath section says the war was an Indian victory. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:3C12:E75F:41C5:83A8 ( talk) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
An edit was made regarding how the war started: Tribesmen had invaded Kashmir because of Muslims being massacred (some of them also had family ties to Kashmiris who were being massacred). They didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Kashmir for no reason. You can check the exact wording of the edit for yourself. Initially, the source for that information was this article. Within less than an hour Kautilya3 removed it, claiming the source was not a good one. Going by what feedback was provided, I provided a source in accordance to what requirements were set. However, within one minute, Kautilya3 reverted it it yet again, despite there being a reliable source, now with the reason of edit warring. The reason the first edit was removed was due to what Kautilya3 claimed was a bad source and justified complete removal of the information. However, even with a source that fits requirements, Kautilya3 almost instantly reverted the edit, and then proceeded to place the blame me for edit warring. I'd agree the first edit being reverted, but I fail to understand why the second one being reverted in the name of edit warring from me is justified, as the only issue brought up with the previous edit had been solved with a reliable source. Wouldn't attempting to paint Pakistan as a plain aggressor by removing mentions of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir which led up to the war not be considered neutral? I understand Kautilya3 is an Indian and we all have our biases, whether we realise it or not. So why not bring it up on the talk page for discussion instead of instantly reverting the edit that you disagreed with and engaging in edit warring?
Re12345 ( talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Xeed.rice, this page is on discretionary sanctions (as it says so in one of the banners at the top). You need to be confident that you can obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits before you decide to make them, and you need to explain your rationale clearly in your edit summaries.
Why did you change the images in the infobox? What makes you think that the images you installed are in the "public domain"? And where did the upper image come from? It is not in the website you mentioned as the source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Extendon, This is entirely inappropriate in the context of this article, even if it were true. Please see reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
To prevent vandalism, I am requesting to change the protection to Extended confirmed protection or least Semi protect.â¯â¯â¯ Praveg A=9.8 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Mehtar10, You have been WP:edit warring over dubious revisions to the lead. Your first source is a letter by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, who is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used. The second source is a book plagiarising Wikipedia.
Moreover, the MOS:LEAD is expected to summarise the body of the article. You are not permitted to introduce new contentious material in the lead. Please discuss your issues here, instead of WP:edit warring. All edits to this page are subject to WP:discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Just want to point out that British Indian Army Veterans were on both sides, not just India. Brig. Habibur Rehman for example was a British Indian Army Veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5820:6A20:6C8F:EC9B:14E4:2679 ( talk) 04:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that this article which is cited as a Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one. The article was published in 2014, while India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace was published in 1998, 16 years earlier. The claim of 6000 Pakistani soldiers killed originated from an Indian source.
This article states that there are no reliable figures on Pakistani casualties
This article states 1500 soldiers died on each side
It seems like the author of the The News International article just wrote whatever casualty figure they could find, and since there is no figure other than the Indian claim, they ended up writing that.
So I don't think labelling the figure of 6000 killed as a Pakistani claim is correct. I cannot find a Pakistani source other than this article that supports these figures. SpicyBiryani (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Isra2003memon, you have been inserting "Pakistani victory" in the result field using your WP:Original research arguments. I am afraid this is not proper. Only facts mentioned in reliable sources can be added to Wikipedia. Given the contentious nature of the topic, multiple reliable sources would be needed to decide the result field. Please provide reliable sources for the content, or self-revert it. This page is covered under WP:ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3, you are an Indian and you are making changes on this article to make your country of India appear in a better light. You should not be making changes on a Wikipedia article that favor your country which includes fake statements that are made to make you happy. All sources should be provided before you make such changes and your stance should be neutral and apart from your personal opinion. I noticed that you made many changes that alter history to favor India. Please refrain from using your personal perceptions and your pro-India opinions when editing articles.
![]() | You used the {{
Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{
Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the
Teahouse, the
help desk, or join
Wikipedia's Live Help
IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click
here for instant access to the channel. |
The toolbox info is incorrect as it says that GB was annexed by Pakistan. GB was not annexed, rather it was acceded to Pakistan by the locals. According to various scholars, the people of Gilgit as well as those of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin, Punial, Hunza and Nagar joined Pakistan by choice and the Gilgit scouts willingly fought alongside Pakistan and the princely state of Chitral against the Indian/Dogra occupation. I have decided to delete the toolbox with the statement that GB was annexed because that is a false statement as Gilgit and its neighboring states signed a combined instrument of accession to Pakistan on November 18th 1947. Seeing the pro-Pakistani sentiment amongst the people of Gilgit, it is baseless to call it an annexation, also the fact that the Gilgit Scouts fought alongside Pakistan proves that GB had very strong pro-Pakistani sentiments. On the other hand could the same be said about India in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh? Did it have the favor of it's people? It was India that had annexed two thirds of Kashmir via an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator (Maharaja Singh) which was not favored by it's people. When a dictator accedes the territory that doesn't belong to him to another country without the approval of it's people, that is illegal annexation. India acted on an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator, what gives the right for one single man to decide the fate of millions? Pakistan was clearly the liberator.
See references:
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269, S2CID 159652497
Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (9 January 2016). "Gilgit-Baltistan—part of Pakistan by choice". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2017. Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.
Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004). Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 309–. ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2.
Mahmud, Ershad (2008), "The Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Package 2007: Background, Phases and Analysis", Policy Perspectives, 5 (1): 23–40, JSTOR 42909184
Sokefeld, Martin (November 2005), "From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan" (PDF), The Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4): 939–973, doi:10.1017/S0021911805002287, S2CID 161647755
Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, I.B.Tauris, 2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman1993 ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I notice that a number of citations have been added to this source:
It is an unknown author and the short 1 page article has numerous errors:
Errors go on like this. I am removing all citations to this source. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Ironman993, you added this bit to the lead: On 22 October 1947, amidst Pakistani fears of the Maharaja potentially acceding his Muslim-majority princely state to India
(the war was launched).
On the face of it, it is true that Pakistan had such fears. But you can't make it look like a justification for the war. The Maharaja was at liberty to accede to whichever dominion he chose, according the 3 June Plan that was accepted by both the sets of leaders. Jinnah is on record as having explicitly acknowledged it. (I can dig up quotations for you, if you would like.) And let us also note that Jinnah accepted the accession of a Hindu-majority state prior to this, i.e., Pakistan had secular pretensions at this stage.
Secondly, the Maharaja could not have acceded to India without the support of Sheikh Abdullah. And Abdullah was open to negotiation with Pakistan. But Jinnah refused to negotiate with him! [1] So just "fears" don't cut it. This is a WP:POV edit. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Kautilya3 Historically the justification of the war was because of concerns that the Maharaja would accede the state to India. The Maharajah earlier had dismissed all his pro-Pakistani politicians and on 11 August, he dismissed his pro-Pakistan Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak, and appointed an Indian retired Major Janak Singh in his place. This was very alarming. On the same day, the Jammu Muslim Conference wrote to the Pakistani Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan warning him that "if, God forbid, the Pakistan Government or the Muslim League do not act, Kashmir might be lost to them". So yes there were ongoing fears that the Maharajah would accede the Muslim majority state to India and because of that we could safely say that was the justification. Sheikh Abdullah represented the valley not the entirety of Kashmir, he also supported Congress of India, so his support for India would not have changed anything because he was just one politicians, the vast majority of Kashmiris who were Muslim did not favor the states accession to India. A plebiscite should have been held regardless of the views that individual politicians held. Earlier India had illegally annexed Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis that they were Hindu majority. If we are to apply the same logic here, then why should a Muslim Majority Kashmir go to India? It should go to Pakistan just like Hindu majority Hyderabad and Junagad went to India.
Further on, it was just not Pakistan who had fears of the Maharaja acceding the state to India, after all it was the Jammu conference that had initially wrote letters to the then PM Liaquat Ali Khan warning him about a possible accession to India. That said, the majority of Muslim Kashmiris did not favor the states accession to India, many Muslim Kashmiris fought against Indian occupation forces during this war, as such India should have never accepted the accession and should have stood by a plebiscite. In conclusion the justification for the war is entirely based on the fact that the Maharaja was planning to accede to India due to all the revolts and uprisings he was facing in his state. The removal of his pro-Pakistani politicians with pro-Indian also hinted the fact that he was planning on acceding to India if not immediately, some time later on down the road.
India had annexed Hyderabad even though the Nizam Osman Ali Khan chose to remain independent. Why did India invade Hyderabad when the Nizam chose to remain independent? Now you question why Pakistan invaded Kashmir? The answer is simple, the Maharaja was planning to accede the state to India and there were concerns of it due to his inability to control the Muslim revolts and uprisings in Kashmir.
Even for the sake of argument, if the fear of Maharaja's potential accession to India was not the crux of Pakistan's concern in the war, even then Pakistan is fully within it's rights to invade Kashmir just like how India had invaded Hyderabad and Junagad on the basis they were Hindu majority. Pakistan entering Kashmir on the basis it was a Muslim majority state shouldn't be surprising considering the fact that India did the exact same thing when it invaded and annexed Hyderabad and Junagad. Ironman993 ( talk)
References:
Jha, Prem Shankar (March 1998), "Response (to the reviews of The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947)", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 113–123, doi:10.1080/14662049808447762
Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India 2010, p. 103. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 ( talk • contribs)
Ironman993, please focus on the issue at hand (not Hyderabad or Junagadh), and use WP:RS to back up your assertions. Also, avoid WP:SOAPBOXing, like speaking of "rights". Wikipedia does not argue, or pronounce judgements; it only provides information based on RS.
The Muslim Conference letter you mention (have you read it actually?) doesn't ask Pakistan to invade Kashmir. It was only seeking negotiations or perhaps political pressure, because Jinnah at that time had a non-interference policy. But Muslim Conference was not the only party in the state. National Conference was the other. Sheikh Abdullah led the National Conference. In order to acquire Kashmir, Pakistan would have needed to negotiate with both of them and buy their acceptance. But Pakistan refused to negotiate with Abdullah. I have provided an RS for that. So it is not as simple as "Maharaja and fears". Pakistan chose to use force instead of political negotiations. The agency rests with Pakistan. It wasn't "fears". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947 says on page 19 ...it is hard to understand how any responsible Pakistani decision-maker could have believed that a war with India over Kashmir would result in Pakistani victory
. That's not referencing Pakistani victory. In the absence of a full quote from the other claimed reference, I have removed the claim entirely. I have also removed the result from the lead entirely pending discussion on how it can be phrased properly. ] The result of the war was inconclusive. However, most neutral assessments agree that India was the victor of the war
is an absurd construction. If most neutral assessments agree that India won (and looking at the quotes provided that does appear to be the case) then it wasn't inconclusive.
FDW777 (
talk)
14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Before the INA was present on Indian category, why was it moved to Pakistan? Instead of INA shown under Pakistan category, it should be British Indian Army not INA. INA was purely a India thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In the "Territorial changes" section, the infobox states, "Pakistan controls roughly a third of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India controls the rest (Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh"
However, this wording, as well as its source, refers to the present boundaries of Kashmir, rather than the changes that took place as a result of the war.
Shouldn't it say something along the lines of "Pakistan gains control of/captured roughly a third of Kashmir, whereas India retained the rest"Â ? Cipher21 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Those maps of the various battles are very bad on the eyes, do they actually do any good? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
MBlaze Lightning, S. J. Thapa was a prominent and decorated commander who was responsible for commanding the year long defence and fall of Skardu, the largest city in the Gilgit-Baltistan/ Ladakh region. Please explain why you think he's too irrelevant to include in the infobox. Cipher21 (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as commanders are concerned, the instructions currently specify that the field should include "the commanders of the military forces involved" and that "for wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed"; but defining "commander" and "prominent" more precisely has intentionally been left to the subject experts for each particular topic. The end result needs to be helpful to the reader; beyond that, trying to develop a one-size-fits-all rule to things like this doesn't strike me as a particularly useful thing to do.
prominentor not — relevant details are at Sher Jung Thapa and Siege of Skardu. TrangaBellam ( talk) 07:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Information summarized in an infobox should follow the general guidance for writing a lead section. It should not "make claims" or present material not covered by the article.In its present form, it does more to confuse rather than aid the understanding of the reader. The article itself gives a very superficial summary of the war itself, which is supposed to be the primary topic of the article. It gives no perspective of the scale of the engagement. Back to the infobox, all of this flagcruft is about as useful as bunting at a football match and is quite inappropriate. More to the point, about 80% of the leaders on both sides are only mentioned in the infobox. Their mention is not supported by the article at all and should be struck from the infobox. Just because a reference exists does not mean that it should be included. Further, in the case of K. M. Cariappa, their contribution to the war (according to the article) was to change the name of an operation:
Operation Duck, the earlier epithet for this assault, was renamed as Operation Bison by Cariappa.This is a war that was presumably fought by corps or even army sized formations. IAW the template documentation, these are the sort of commanders that might be listed, along with the national leaders - political and military. To the matter of Thapa, at least he gets more than a passing mention but he is hardly in the league of generals. If the sources (and subsequently the article) say that he had a pivotal role in the outcome of the war, he might rate a place. They don't. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Kashmir Valley the tribal forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north, Skardu was brought under siege by the Gilgit Scouts.[113]
The Kashmir State army was able to defend Skardu from the Gilgit Scouts impeding their advance down the Indus valley towards Leh. In August the Chitral Scouts and Chitral Bodyguard under Mata ul-Mulk besieged Skardu and with the help of artillery were able to take Skardu. This freed the Gilgit Scouts to push further into Ladakh.[115][116]
The Pakistani attacked the Skardu on 10 February 1948 which was repulsed by the Indian soldiers.[118] Thereafter, the Skardu Garrison was subjected to continuous attacks by the Pakistan Army for the next three months and each time, their attack was repulsed by the Colonel Sher Jung Thapa and his men.[118] Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment.[119] On 14 August Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army[120] and raiders after a year long siege.[121]
Following from the main discussion, I have
removed some commanders from the infobox with this comment: Fixing infobox bloat. RM commanders whose inclusion is not supported by mention elsewhere in the article. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article.
This was
reverted by
Kautilya3. The infobox should and must reasonably reflect the body of the article. What goes in the infobox should naturally follow the article. It doesn't. My edit addresses only one of the many issues with the infobox. There is a similar issue with combatants and an issue with flag icons which, at the very least, are inaccurate.
Cinderella157 (
talk)
12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Any list information should be reasonably completeis not an accepted/acceptable argument under guideline or policy. Indiscriminate information is a disservice to the reader. The advice is to limit the list to the prominent or notable leaders. This is a "bloated" list and the article does not show at all why those deleted are prominent or notable. The course is to improve the article. It is not to retain that which is "poor" just because it exists. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "the Maharaja unleased a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." to "the Maharaja unleashed a 'reign of terror' on 24 August." Abhaykashyapnvn ( talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So many Indians with fake claims always talk about their victory in all wars. But here I will only talk about the topic related war which is 1947-48 war. They are every where to prove their fake victory. I have readed the history not only Indian version but Pakistani and natural versions too. And I'm not going into deep conversations. I'll make it so simple and understandable. Pakistan in 1947-48 captured most of the kashmir which india also claims as their territory later, Now whatever the reasons behind Pakistan captured kashmir and whatever the reasons behind India claiming as whole kashmir as their I'm not going into this bla bla bla... The point is Pakistan occupied the territory which india claims as their. So its enough to say Pakistan won 1947-48 war. First of all Indians need to understand wars causes damage to both sides but India also lost the territories which they claims as their despite having accession of Raja. In my point of view India lost that war with a great damage, And Pakistan won. Ali Shah (Markhor) ( talk) 12:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Cinderella157: and @
Truthwins018:- Do not edit war. As per discretionary sanctions, you may be blocked from editing this article permanently if you continue this behaviour. If you have been reverted, achieve consensus before attempting to enforce your edits.
I recommend that these edits be reverted till the time a consensus is achieved, if anyone has a counter-view kindly say so. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 04:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Info box mentions casualties of both sides Indian and Pakistan as 1,104 and 6000 respectively.
The 6000 figure is highly questionable and isn't mentioned in any press release by the ISPR
[1].
Presenting a staunch figure seems illogical as the war included many combined fractions and is not well documented in terms of casualty count. Global security
[2] is a comparatively trusted source (not the best offcourse) and is neutral.
I propose its mentioning with a change from 6000 to 1500-6000. New section is added due to lack of concensus in an earlier section
Truthwins018 (
talk)
20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Going by the sources on the internet, and the time of this war, none of the sources can be deemed reliable [3]. The 6000 casualties source is cited by an article of The News [4] doesn't make it certain where the casualty is cited from and seems to be picked on the internet by the writer (probably wikipedia). The best source on the internet is surely provided by the Federal research division of the libary of congress [5] which somewhat passes the neutrality factor aswell. Globalresearch.org has been deemed questionable but why is its quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [6] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar [7] not questioned ? 1,500 certainly deserves to be included in the info box, as a somewhat acceptable term. [8] Truthwins018 ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
So far reaching consensus on quoting of figures 1500-6000 for Pakistani casualties citing this source
this source. Would like to know if anyone disagrees
Truthwins018 (
talk)
19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the 6000 figure originates from Indian sources and The News source looks like
WP:CIRC. We should label it as an Indian claim, and the 1500 one as a neutral one, as on other war articles.
Cipher21
(talk)
04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
As no obvious consensus is reached on global security being unreliable and it quoting figures from this source at page 571, it seems obvious to quote them so far. As Cipher21 and Cinderella157 have mentioned, the info box should be changed showing various figures. I propose figures being quoted as 1500 estimate on both indian and pakistani sides as a neutral claim and 6000 casualties as indian claim. this source source by far is the most trustworthy keeping in view the years of the event and the neutrality of the source. Truthwins018 ( talk) 13:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Kautilya3 you seem to have randomly jumped in the discussion without going through all of it. Kindly go through all to know that global security.org also quotes some other source which seems reputable neutral source at page 571 as quoted by Cinderella157 and the reliability of global security.org has also been discussed and consensus is reached upon by 2-3 users already Truthwins018 ( talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I have added ~1,500 killed to both sides, citing Heitzman and Worden (eds). Cinderella157 ( talk) 08:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
No, the handbook seems pretty reasonable in the case of this event and the sources available. It is the only neutral casualty figure available and also worked upon by the Federal Research Division of Congress. It directly mentions the figures so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS cannot imply. The 6000 casualty figure also has no reference to any source e.g from the ISPR. It is thus that it is available also in the estimated range of casualty figures, although i believe it should be mentioned under a subtitle of indian claimed Truthwins018 ( talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible; you may have comprehension problems, that doesn't preclude others from calibrating a source. Kerberous ( talk) 17:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Information in the source neutral source is definetely not impyling WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. It would seem to imply if the source was on some other country and mentioning thus the information. The source clearly is on one of the participating countries of the war and under a section on National Security. It also mentions all the other Indo-Pak wars. It is fine to present the source as an estimate from 1500-6000. The 6000 figures also seem dubious and WP:BIASED. Even citation of The News source looks like WP:CIRC as mentioned by Cipher21. No official statementhas been given by Pakistani authorities to ascertain the casualty figure. The 1,500 source is cited here [ [1]] and on global security.org which has quotation in reputable news sources like the Washington Post [9] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar [10] including reuters as SpicyBiryani has mentioned earlier. Truthwins018 ( talk) 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear from any of the sources just what these figures represent (ie the context). In each case, there are "official" casualties of the two national militaries but there are also military casualties that were not officially part of the two national militaries. I would suspect that the lower figures (ie 1000-1500) are the "official" casualties. The 6000 figure is likely the total combatant figure for Pakistan. The total for India might be similarly higher if it were to include the Kashmir state forces etc. This is of course my assessment and counts for naught at the end of the day. We must rely on the sources that we have - as imperfect as they might be. Cinderella157 ( talk) 12:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my unexplained revert but it was done by mistake. It has already been explained by
Cinderella157 and is definetely inspiring confidence. The reasons have clearly been stated. In this topic, it is only neutral to state it as an estimate of both. Read the above discussion. You changed the article without actually making a point. Opinion doesn't carry weight here. Hope you understand
WP:OR
Truthwins018 (
talk)
17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) and whether it is sufficiently reliable to support the I made has been referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for comment. Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The RfC has now been closed. This was a technical close that the source was considered unreliable, more for the lack of evidence that it is a WP:RS than that the evidence doesn't exist:
... does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work).
Some post close comments evidence that these requirements can be easily met. [2], [3], [4] My own searches would indicate that the editors (those exercising oversight) are considered eminent in respect to south Asian history and like. It appears clear that the closers rational for making their close could be readily addressed. On the otherhand, the discussion at WP:RSN raised significant concerns with the other sources being used to support the casualty figures reported - ie that none of the sources are adequate for the purpose of reporting casualty figures. Consequently, there would appear to be a couple of courses open from here:
Option 4 is clearly the best path but it assumes that such sources do exist and I'm not certain they do since it is reasonable to assume that they would have been found and used by now if they did. There is probably going to be a lot of argument against option 3 - not because it isn't an appropriate course but because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is common sense in preferring option 2 over option 1. Option 5 assumes that nobody is going to advance option 1. Comments on how to proceed please. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
@ Cinderella157: I also checked the RSN result and it seems that the source is indeed unreliable. Nobody except you, one user and a sock puppet ever agreed here with that source anyway against numerous editors who opposed the inclusion all the time so I think you are better off moving away from this part of the topic per WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 06:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
In sum, while the numerical margin against reliability was small, the arguments in favor of reliability objectively did not meet the bar set in WP:RS, which is a requirement for inclusion as documented at WP:V. It is possible that editors may, in the future, bring forward new information about the source that convinces other editors that it meets the requirements of WP:RS; consensus can change.The post close discussion (ping MGetudiant, John M Baker and Tayi Arajakate who contributed there, and the closer Levivich) clearly indicate that the technical reasons for the close could readily be satisfied.
This is what I wrote at the RfC:
Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:
During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed. [1]
- So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379
It is possible that all the Indian military writers just reported their own casualties and ignored those of the State Forces. If that is supposed to be reasonable, then by the same count, it would also be reasonable to count only Pakistani Army casualties like the US Federal Research Division did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. Pr0pulsion 123 ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The picture of Pakistani troops in position is wrong it's from the 1965 war. Pakistani troops weren't that much well equipped during the Gilgit Baltistan liberation war. https://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/war-image-gallery.php Pr0pulsion 123 ( talk) 12:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the "leaders" mentioned in the infobox include the relevant heads of states? Both countries at the time were dominions, so they had a king.
-- 93.35.218.101 ( talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please re-add the campaignbox. Re12345 ( talk) 07:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Prior to May 1948, the regular Pakistan Army did not fight in the war; only irregular forces did. The infobox should mention this in such a manner:
Extended content
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joooshhh ( talk) 18:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
In May 1948, the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict, in theory to defend the Pakistan borders, but it made plans to push towards Jammu and cut the lines of communications of the Indian forces in the Mehndar Valley.[94], the cited source being Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict 2003, pp. 65–67. Re12345 ( talk) 07:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit on the grounds that, even if Pakistan troops were not deployed in Kashmir prior to May 1948, the Pakistan Army was fully involved. Here are some extracts from General Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain's talk at an ISPR-organised conference: [8]
"When Quaid-e-Azam was briefed about all this [on or around 27 October 1947], he kept quiet, General Gracey then asked his permission to draw his own plan."
"The first thing after this conversation was selection of suitable officers. officers were picked up from the army. Brigadier Akbar had served with General Gracey on the Burma front and was recommended for Victoria Cross but was awarded D.S.O. due to lack of evidence. A cell for planning on Kashmir was created in Military Operations Directorate under Brigadier Sher Khan. Similarly a branch under Adjutant General was opened which was assigned the job of selecting those officers who had been associated with Kashmir or the State forces. Such officers were sent to assist the Mujahideen and were shown as retired or absent without leave".
General Wajahat further said that "apart from planning military operations, General Messervy had a close liaison with the civil authorities. He used to come to the office at half past seven, Brigadier Sher Khan would present the report on the previous twenty four hours and get instructions for the next day. Then they would visit the operations room where consultations would continue till 10 a.m. Thereafter rest of the affairs were handled. In the evening General Gracey would visit Commissioner Rawalpindi, attired in civil clothes. Briadier Sher Khan, GOC 7 Division Major General Tottenham and a couple of other Brigadiers like Brigadier Azam Khan or Brigadier Akbar used to be present. The deliberations would continue till late at night. Every second or third day General Gracey used to submit the progress report to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan who himself used to come once or twice a week, accompanied by Secretary General Mohammad Ali. Once in a fortnight or so Defence Secretary Colonel Sikandar Mirza would pay a visit".
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Supported by:
|
References
1947 mirpur massacre leads to a different event. 2A02:A44D:E8B0:1:258D:6D40:804E:C29 ( talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Your edit reverted more than just infobox edits. Why Indian gain (which is bigger) shouldn't be entered first? Not to mention that India is described as the victor of this war by many sources. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Pakistan refused to reconcile itself to the loss of much of Kashmir
Indian troops reached Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir first, and thus they controlled most of Kashmir. The Pakistanis only were able to seize one third of Kashmir.
When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percent of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million was Muslim. [...] Indian forces won most of Kashmir.
India also seized most of Kashmir but at the cost of creating an intractable problem that has poisoned relations with Pakistan to the present day.
Auchinleck's refusal to allow British participation in Kashmir perhaps proved decisive in the military conflict as India took control of most of Kashmir.
The result was a war where India holds most of Kashmir, but Pakistan gained a share of it.
Most of Kashmir fell to Indian control, while Pakistan gains one-third of the region." This is what I am still proposing. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 09:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder [1] [2]IMHO, this is a summary that best conforms to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. To the result, I believe that this has been flogged to death, resuscitated and flogged to death again. It is an ex parrot. Neither side got what they wanted. Both sides got something before the UN stepped in. Per MOS:MIL an appropriate result would be the see aftermath section option - the nearest existing section being the Moves up to cease-fire section but that isn't great. The alternative is to omit the result parameter. IMHO, the status quo (
United Nations-mediated ceasefire) is a reasonable WP:IAR alternative to the guidance at MOS:MIL. However, the dot-points that follow are intricate detail and I have removed these as being inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and usage of the result parameter per MOS:MIL. I would suggest that the article could be improved by expanding detail on the cease-fire and aftermath that would address some of the detail mentioned. I have retitled two sections as a start. Cinderella157 ( talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder, since the war was fought over the principality. Kautilya3, do you see any issue with this? Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over the majority of territory". Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Indian forces won control of most of Kashmir
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This article should mention in the lead and background section that Hari Singh slaughtered 100,000+ Kashmiri Muslims in "revenge" for their dissent [1] and to change the demographics of the region [2] [3] [4], which fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of. [5] [6] Solblaze ( talk) 10:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
...the tale of a massacre of Muslims produced the Kashmir disupte
After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)The killings triggered a series of events, including a war between two newly independent nations of India and Pakistan, which gave birth to Kashmir dispute.
The tale of a massacre of Muslims caused a chain of events that produced the Kashmir disputemy bad on not copying this quote properly initially - the text was not copy paste-able
This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.Solblaze ( talk) 06:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Copying below a couple of timeline entries from the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict:
-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
false propaganda? Solblaze ( talk) 11:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Since I have been pinged. For the record, I have no nationalistic ties to the subject and to that extent, my observations are objective. I declined the original edit request because it was insufficiently precise as to what was to be added where. I have since kept a watch on this discussion. I observe that the citations are not as complete as they might be. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the proposed text is fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of
, which cites two sources. I cannot access the first. For the second, the hyperlink is to the home page of Frontline and an extensive search by author and title does not reveal the cited article. The assertion by
Solblaze is that there was a direct causative effect between the
1947 Jammu massacres and the
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. The opposition by
Kautilya3 is that there was not. Solblaze has cited sources and provided quote snippets to support their assertion. For myself, I am uncomfortable making an assessment based on quotes alone without the fuller context in which they were made. I have considered the following articles:
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948,
1947 Jammu massacres,
1947 Poonch rebellion and
Kashmir conflict. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is part of the ongoing Kashmir conflict. The partition, rebellion, massacares and first war arguably initiated the conflict. Hence, where sources might assert that [t]hey [including the 1947 Jammu massacres] instigated the ongoing dispute
, it does not necessarily mean that they instigated the first war since the dispute is much greater than the first war. That is why the fuller context of a quote is important.
The proposal is to assert a causative relationship: that the massacres were a cause of the first war. To even entertain such a case, the massacres must precede the war and even then, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a caution. In respect to establishing clear timelines leading up to the start of the war on 22 October 1947, the articles are quite poor. The Poonch rebellion, between June 1947 – October 1947 clearly predates the official start of the war. There is also a clear causative link between the rebellion, Indian intervention and the start of the war. The massacres occurred between October 1947 – November 1947, with the first indication being 14 October. They certainly don't appear to cause the rebellion (the rebellion predates the massacre) and are more likely to be a response to the rebellion - with both being a response/result of partition. While the massacres may have slightly preceded the start of the war I am not seeing a reasonable case for asserting they were a cause of the first war. On the otherhand, I am seeing a reasonably likely case to assert they were causative of the Kashmir conflict, along with the other events (the partition, rebellion, massacares and first war) but the conflict is not synonymous with the first war.
Consequently, on the information before me, and having given full consideration to all of that information to the extent I am able, I cannot action the change, even if it were to be more precise as to what was to be added where. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics.- from BBC - combined with Al Jazeera stating the same, and Snedden writing that the wider conflict was sparked by outrage at the killings of Muslims should be sufficient (I believe I provided a url to Snedden in my citations)
There are two reasons why this massacre, if it occurred, is important.I would tend to agree. While it is clear that Pakistan planned an uprising, massacre/s and/or riots against Muslims would have played to such a plan. Sneddon likely refers to events around the 1947 Poonch rebellion. This article presently states:
"exaggerated reports of events in Poonch circulated in these Pakistan districts in which State troops are cited as the aggressors."In light of Sneddon (and any other good quality sources on this), we might modify what the article has to say but the 1947 Poonch rebellion is the main article for those events. However, without the benefit of the full text (and the full context of what is said), I leave this as might - particularly given that Sneddon has stated
if it occurred. If you have access to the full journal article and/or an excerpt of the book, I would appreciate you emailing me a copy. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
References
Noorani2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By changing the result to Indian Victory a previous RFC held here is being refuted. To change the result a new RFC should be held, till then the result should be reverted back to this revision as it complies with the aforementioned RFC. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:6865:FDB9:935A:F004 ( talk) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Indian victory is unreliable to add in this page as many sources, people, and simple facts show pakistan as won but the same is for the other side so i request you to instead add it as no clear winner Pajeetspotter ( talk) 12:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Indian victory" in the result to "UN-mandated ceasefire" and "See aftermath". The topic of the result is highly contentious as evident in the talk page, and the current result was only changed recently and facing mass crticism. The current result fails MOS:MIL and when the user who made the edit was confronted, he simply ignored the message and made a minor edit after the confrontation, making it evident he ignored it. This topic is highly contentious and the citing of a military stalemate with one side having the slight upper hand as a total victory is incorrect and a fallacy, and the updated result has faced massive contention with multiple people criticizing. I request that after "UN-mandated ceasefire" be "See aftermath" to align with MOS:MIL, and show the situation of both parties at the time of the ceasefire. MrGreen1163 ( talk) 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert to this revision. The current version aftermath section says the war was an Indian victory. 2400:ADC1:477:8500:3C12:E75F:41C5:83A8 ( talk) 08:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)