Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:28, 10 December 2021 editCinderella157 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers18,520 edits →6000 casualties figure: added ~1,500 killed to both sides← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:28, 11 December 2021 edit undoYoonadue (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,085 edits →6000 casualties figure Next edit →
Line 305:		Line 305:

	I have added ~1,500 killed to both sides, citing Heitzman and Worden (eds). ] (]) 08:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)		I have added ~1,500 killed to both sides, citing Heitzman and Worden (eds). ] (]) 08:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
			::The handbook furnished revolves around a general theme of the country India and touches on the war at issue in passing, with no reference to any source for the casualty figures. Unless better sources are provided, the existing content will stay as is as undergirded by reliable sources. The handbook fails ]. --] (]) 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

	{{reftalk}}		{{reftalk}}

Revision as of 16:28, 11 December 2021

Skip to table of contents

Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Casualties claims

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)

Researchgate is a social networking site while GlobalSecurity has been deemed unreliable on Misplaced Pages. This is a Pakistani source and supports the figures. I would really like to know why you removed this source on this edit and labelled the figure as "Indian claim". At times the figures are not believed differently by either sides, but they have mutual agreement. For example, India and Pakistan both agree that 1971 war saw more than 93,000 surrenders. I guess the same is the case here that's why you are seeing "Pakistani claim provides figures based an Indian one". Your personal research does not carry weight here. Aman Kumar Goel 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source, while your random article from 2014 is? GlobalSecurity is widely used across Misplaced Pages. Its founder, John Pike, is a leading expert on defence. There's an entire page on the website dedicated to the praise it has recieved. It is cited by NYT here and here as a source on US military history, here by Reuters, here, here and here by The Washington Post, here by CNN, and in multiple books, such as:

Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.
Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.

Moreover, it is cited by some 23,200 articles on Google Scholar.

Secondly, you are yet to produce an official statement by Pakistan regarding the casualties from this war. The assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here. SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

British Indian Army veterans were on both sides

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)

If this is about the infobox, it says Indian National Army, which is not the British Indian Army. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Result field

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

But India did not accede the entire state of Jammu & Kashmir as implied by Result filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.216.250 (talk) 14:36, 9 May 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's Live Help channel on IRC to get real-time assistance.

Toolbox info is incorrect

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

Pakistani fears

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! So just "fears" don't cut it. This is a WP:POV edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Taseer, Christobel Bilqees (1986), The Kashmir of Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, Ferozsons, pp. 300–301

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)

The lead should be a summary of what is already in the article main text. It should not have separately sourced points which are not in the main body. Also, please sensibly indent and sign your messages. (Hohum ) 23:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding the same content, self revert, and discuss here. You are now basically edit warring. (Hohum ) 23:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

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". Misplaced Pages 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)

Did India negotiate with Osman Ali Khan before they invaded Hyderabad and massacred 200,000 Hyderabadi Muslinms? You claim that Pakistan chose force, did India not use force in Hyderabad? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman993 (talk • contribs)

Yes, India did negotiate for almost year and give an eventual ultimatum to Hyderabad. But that is not relevant here. And doesn't give you a license to do anything here as you please.

I have already added wording to explain Pakistan's motivations as scholars describe it. Nothing more is needed.

The source that you are repeatedly citing has nothing about the issue. It is a WP:FAKE citation. Even worse, it is a lousy FAKE citation, as I have explained in the section below. Persistent with this WP:BATTLEGROUND editing will get you into trouble. You have been already informed of ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironman993 You have been specifically told to focus on the issue under discussion. Not doing so, in spite thereof, may be interpreted as a sign of comprehension problem, or worse, a deliberate attempt to digress from the topic at hand. You must endeavor to touch upon the key points raised in the discussion if you wish to achieve consensus for your edits. You can begin by first grasping the issue, and then let your understanding define the direction of your comment. Lastly, sign your comments using four tildes ~~~~ and make sure they are written clearly so you do not flounder trying to read your own writing. Regards, MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

And here is the letter from J&K Muslim Conference itself, reproduced in large parts:

Noorani, A. G. (15 April 2017), "Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah – Part 2", Greater Kashmir

Plus also all other political directions at that time. Nothing here points to any need for the Government of Pakistan to launch an invasion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Marin article

I notice that a number of citations have been added to this source:

Marin, Steve (2011), "India-Pakistan War (1947)", in Alexander Mikaberidze (ed.), Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, pp. 393–394, ISBN 978-1-59884-336-1

It is an unknown author and the short 1 page article has numerous errors:

He implies that "Kashmir and Jammu" were two kingdoms!
These kingdoms supposedly "opted independence", which is doubtful because there was no declaration of independence.
The Pakistani forces apparently entered Kashmir "under the guise of quelling tribal rebellion in the southwest region of the kingdom". No they came in support of the rebellion!
The British government was apparently still "involved" because Mountbatten "agreed to provide transport aircraft". In the first place, Mountbatten was a constitutional head of state, not a representative of the British government. The British government was not involved. In fact, it severely criticised the decision! Secondly, the transport aircraft, were Indian civilian aircraft, not Mountbatten's aircraft.

Errors go on like this. I am removing all citations to this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not rely on ABC-CLIO encyclopedias. Ever. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pakistans Victory

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)

Misrepresentation of at least one reference

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)

Territorial changes

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" ? Cipher21 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3, pinging you in case you didn't see this since you reverted my edit. Cipher21 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I called it hair-splitting. The territory that is currently under Pakistani control was never under independent India's control. So, why should we distinguish one from the other? What was under whose control when the conflict began? When did the conflict begin? There are a whole bunch of imponderables that you seem to think are obvious. And, where is an RS that says anything about these matters? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

And, to make it worse, Pakistan didn't "gain" it. As per the UN resolution that Pakistan accepted, those areas are to be administered by "local authorities", not Pakistan. This is a whole big boondoogle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't narrate the whole war - you can read the article for that - but the vast majority of territory Pakistan captured (such as Gilgit, Skardu, Baltistan and other areas in Ladakh) was captured after the state became part of India on the 26th of October, 1947. The article already goes into great detail about this, backed with plenty of RS. So yeah, I think it's accurate to say Pakistan invaded and gained control of these areas, while India defended the rest of the state.

A UN resolution is just a resolution. It doesn't have reality bending powers. The UN resolution says that Pakistan should withdraw its forces from its portion of Kashmir (implying it already controls it), and should hand over power to local authorities - which hasn't happened. Pakistan also agreed to UNSC Resolution 80 which calls for both sides to withdraw their militaries. That doesn't mean neither side controls any territory in Kashmir. Cipher21 (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid this is becoming a WP:FORUMy debate. Unless there are reliable sources for the proposed workding, it is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

. Again, the article makes it quite clear Pakistan was the one who invaded the state and India defended it. There's no need to cite more sources in the infobox when this fact has already been established in the article.Cipher21 (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers are only reliable for news, i.e., current happenings that they can observe and report. They are not reliable for history. Papers like India Today and Eurasian Times are probably not even reliable for news. How can you possibly cite a source that uses terms like "illegally occupied"? The first source is a copy of Misplaced Pages. Are you serious at all?

The last source is fine, but what does it say, and where? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG does not state that newspapers are unreliable for history. In fact, the article already cites BBC in the "territorial changes" section of the infobox. The last source in the above list states India defended Kashmir from Pakistan: "The Indian army defended Kashmir against Pakistani aggression." (p. 324)

Anyway, here are some more RS:

Ghosh, Partha S. "An enigma that is South Asia: India versus the region." Asia-Pacific Review 20, no. 1 (2013): 100-120 "The 1947-48 war led to an outright loss for India in territorial terms (Pakistan captured more than two-fifths of the state..."

Wani, A.A., Khan, I.A. and Yaseen, T., 2021. Article 370 and 35A: Origin, Provisions, and the Politics of Contestation. In Society and Politics of Jammu and Kashmir (pp. 53-77). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. "… The Union of India was the official name of the country between independence on August 15, 1947 and the establishment of the Republic … This was followed by a war between India and Pakistan in which Pakistan captured a significant portion of Kashmir"

Panwar, Nidhi. "Roots of insurgency in Indian Jammu and Kashmir-A review." International Journal of Social and Economic Research 6.3 (2016): 78-104. "… When the fighting stopped, India was in control of two-thirds of the entire territory of the State of J&K, including the prized Kashmir Valley. Pakistan gained control of Azad Kashmir and three provinces in the north-west which together made up one-third of the State."

Khan, H.U., 2020. China, the emerging economic power: options and repercussions for Pak–US relations. International Politics, pp.1-26. "The foremost clash between the two countries is over the state of Kashmir, which has resulted in a war in 1948 in which Pakistan captured one-third of the Kashmir state..."

Singh, N., 2012. How to Tame Your Dragon: An Evaluation of India's Foreign Policy Toward China. India Review, 11(3), pp.139-160. "During the 1947 conflict between India and Pakistan, Pakistan captured certain areas of Ladakh... "

It's evident that Pakistan invaded the state (and "captured" or "gained" territory"), while India was the one defending it. The infobox's territorial changes section should reflect this. Cipher21 (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will look into the sources. But what happened to Kulke & Rothermund? What does it say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Kulke & Rothermund p.324 states, "The Indian army defended Kashmir against Pakistani aggression." Cipher21 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Cipher21, peruse WP:OR, and don't tire your fellow editors' interest with such lousy, tenous and frivolous arguments. Keep them within the contours of policies. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting the history of the wording: The initial wording seems to have been "took control of" for both India and Pakistan. In 2013, an IP editor changed it to "conquered" for Pakistan and "retained" for India. At that time, the article did not even credit Pakistan with the invasion. Towards the ed of 2016, Ghatus changed it to "controls" on the grouns of NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see why Ghatus would want to change the wording. The IP editor did not cite any additional sources for their changes, and instead left the same old BBC citation. Logically, Ghatus would change the wording to match the BBC source - although it refers to the present day boundaries in present tense - to maintain NPOV.

However, unlike the IP editor and Ghatus, we have quite a few RS to work with - and that too, sources which actually address the topic at hand instead of describing the present day boundaries of the region. Cipher21 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite all this big talk, you have very little to show for substance. See WP:EMPTYASSERTION. Dubious arguments, devoid of merit, and which revolves around your own conjectures based on cherrypicked fragments from a handful of sketchy and cherrypicked sources do not inspire an ounce of confidence. You have not shown a single reliable source that remotely undergirds what increasingly looks to be an artificially concocted wording that flies in the face of WP:NPOV as this simple Gbooks search crystallizes. Ergo, I do not see a good reason to tamper with the present wording which conforms to NPOV and is borne out by the preponderance of sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironic for you to speak of cherrypicking when you have ignored every single source above as well as the entire discussion. See WP:IDHT. Your Google search yields results stating things along the lines of "India was left in control of two thirds of Kashmir." You cannot discard multiple WP:RS and other editors' opinions for no reason but the fact that you oppose them - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT - and this sort of behaviour will get you into trouble at ANI. Cipher21 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You are the one failing to get consensus for your edits in this case. I was talking about "preponderance of sources" than isolated instances. You are free to bring your behavior up for a review on ANI. Not one of your unreliable source use the word retain. Your sources include a tangentially related book passing one liner on 1947 war written by a Pakistani professor lacking requisite credentials which you had cherrypicked big time. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

All of the above reliable sources - both Indian, Pakistani and neutral - say Pakistan invaded the state and gained territory, while India defended the it. The results of your Google search state India was left with of 2/3 of Kashmir. Cipher21 (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Cipher21, what the sources say is fairly tangible, and that reflects in our phrasing too. Your personal convictions and conjectures are far from convincing, and there is not a chance that you will convince folks to sympathize with the same should you continue to regurgitate your miscomprehension and mischaracterize what other people or sources say. They also signify that you do not appreciate our core content policies, even after being advised to peruse the same. It doesn't help that you persist in being none the wiser. Misplaced Pages does not publish original research, nor is this a platform to ventilate revisionist viewpoints that have no basis in reliable scholarly sources. Learn the ropes and acquaintance yourself with the core content policies, as folks will not make allowances for long. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Original research? Did you conveniently gloss over the multiple sources above, as well as the entire discussion? Please familiarize yourself with policies before preaching them to others. Cipher21 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, there are better things to do than engage in this battle of semantics? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Cipher21, I have looked through your sources, but I am afraid they fail the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS test (except for perhaps Partha Ghosh). The sources must have substantial coverage of the topic in order for us to take their judgements at face value. Since these sources are each about something else and state something about the war in a cursory fashion, we can't be sure that theirs is a considered position. All we can say at best is that there is some reasonable group of scholars who are ready to think of the result of the war as a "Pakistani capture", well-informed or not.

Partha Ghosh's view is quite something else. The paper is about Great Power issues, and is so full of opinions that pretty much anything in it would have to be attributed on Misplaced Pages. It seems weird to include the 1947-48 war in any considerations of "Great Power" discussion, because India had just come out of colonial rule, was mired in extreme poverty, and was still dependent on Britain for a variety of things (including arms and supplies, and military officers). The 1947 war was not an all-out war, as everybody knows. It had the limited objective of driving out the "raiders" out of Kashmir, and even for that it faced still opposition from the British officials and the British government. The British pressured India to reach a negotiated settlement, and accordingly India took the issue to the UN. Any large-scale military operations after that were entirely ruled out. Talking about a win or loss in this situation is entirely inappropriate.

Coming back to the issue of whether it was "Pakistan" that captured the one-third of Kashmir, I am afraid we need an admission from Pakistan to that effect. And it would need to provide evidence too, because as far as we know it was various kinds of irregulars (local populace revolting, state force members rebelling or random militias raiding) who did the fighting and Pakistan was only providing them support in terms of money, arms and military leadership where needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

INA being moved to the other side

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)

The INA is not present on either side. However, INA veterans fought on Pakistan's side during the war. Cipher21 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest some kind of reframing. Once INA fell, many INA veterans chose to be employed (both formally and informally) by regional armed forces and local militias - I am certain that some INA veteran had fought for JKSF. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The GHQ Azad was run by INA veterans, with supervision and funding from Pakistan Defence Ministry, as well as supervision by the Pakistan GHQ in Rawalpindi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Run by; not composed of. See recent estimates of Gordon. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

S. J. Thapa

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)

Being decorated for gallantry is not a ground or criterion for inclusion of a company commander in the parameter concerned. That would simply open the floodgates to even more entries. The relevant guideline for the same is set forth in the military conflict infobox documentation page and the same specifies as a general rule that the parameter should, if at all justified, enumerate one by one the names of only a handful of prominent or notable commanders, the upper limit being 7, which the article already outstrips, though that cannot be construed as giving you a free pass to preposterously clutter the same even further. This rationale was already made clear to you in my edit summary; it is quite another thing that you didn't (and still haven't!) get it or simply choose to be self-willed and intransigent. When you don't understand something someone told to you, ask that they elucidate the same or put it another way, rather than take recourse to WP:EW to make others acquiesce to your edit howsoever preposterous or problematic the same maybe. Many people, and that includes me, have enjoined you to make yourself acquainted with the policies and guidelines for partaking in editing Misplaced Pages in a constructive spirit, but it seems that you have taken no such advice on board at all, and continue to ride roughshod over and take liberties with the same. Know that such conduct is not ordinarily condoned for long. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all the rhetoric, what is MILHIST policy in this regard? I will leave a note at their wiki project page. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
One former coordinator of MILHIST (and an admin) writes, 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.

I think this is quite reasonable. The issue is whether MVC Thapa qualifies as prominent or not — relevant details are at Sher Jung Thapa and Siege of Skardu. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can include him. The infobox field is meant for people that determine the higher direction of the conflict. Of course, some people come in purely by virtue of their rank. But neither of the criteria applies to Col. Thapa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thapa was in charge of Skardu, which isn't some random small town or village, but a major city - the largest in both Gilgit-Baltistan and Ladakh. The Siege of Skardu was more than significant enough to warrant his inclusion. For reference, Iftikhar Janjua and S.M. Anwar are included in infoboxes (while other commanders of higher ranks are not) for their roles in the Battle of Chamb and Operation Dwarka , both of which are less significant events than the fall of a the largest city in the region. Cipher21 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to provide an "at a glance" summary of the article and is an adjunct to the lead in this respect. Consequently, as for the lead, it should reflect and sumarise the content of the article body. Per the template documentation: 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)

That's my point. Thapa and Skardu are given significant importance in the article and are mentioned many times, more than people already in the infobox like like K. M. Cariappa.

In the Kashmir Valley the tribal forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north, Skardu was brought under siege by the Gilgit Scouts.
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.
The Pakistani attacked the Skardu on 10 February 1948 which was repulsed by the Indian soldiers. 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. Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment. On 14 August Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army and raiders after a year long siege.

Again, I will reiterate the fact that Skardu was an important city and the largest in the region. For an example of what RS say, Brown, William (2014), Gilgit Rebelion: The Major Who Mutinied Over Partition of India, Pen and Sword p.268 states Skardu was attacked because Gilgit could be threatened from there. Cipher21 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You miss my point. In a "war" a Lieutenant Colonel is too far down the pecking order to be considered a "prominent or notable leader" per the advice given at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. However, if there were a case for his inclusion (that his contribution was exceptional to the outcome of the war), it would be clearly evident from the article. It is not (notwithsatnding your quotes). As I have said, the article gives a very superficial summary of the war and further, it is not supported by sound subordinate articles. Also, the article waffles in the lead-up, where it too could be supported by sound subordinate articles. My significant point is that efforts should be directed at improving the body of the article (and subordinate articles) rather than arguing over such a matter. Get the big things right and the rest will follow naturally. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox bloat

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)

When the article is well-developed, yes, the infobox would reflect the body. But you know that is not the case. Any list information should be reasonably complete. So, if you think any entries should be removed, that needs to be discussed.

For my part, I think "Kashmir Singh Katoch" could be removed. I haven't seen any information that he was a commander. -- 12:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Of the "commanders" I have culled from the infobox, none of these appear to have any mention in the body of the article at all (let alone in the actual war). Any list information should be reasonably complete is 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)

@Kautilya3: once that content was removed, the WP:ONUS was on you to seek consensus for inclusion. - wolf 19:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS doesn't say anything of the kind. Longstanding content remains until CONSENSUS changes. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. And that is a policy.

I don't see anybody making a case for anything except for lecturing people on policies. None of them contributed a word to the article either. All the entries that were removed were reasonably well-sourced, and the sources do explain what role they played. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Cinderella, her version of the infobox is much better at getting the most important info across to the reader. (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Cinderella157, I have re-added Thapa since his inclusion is supported by the article and he played a major role in the war. Cipher21 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not seeing a consensus for inclusion. Lack of mention in an article is reason for removal but mention itself does not establish reason for inclusion. There does appear to be a consensus for reduction rather than expansion of this field. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Maps

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)

No. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

6000 casualties figure

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.
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 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 sectionTruthwins018 (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The previous discussion addressed the reliability (or lack of it) for the two sources cited by the OP here. A search and quick scan of the RS noticeboard for Globalsecurity.org does not indicate it is in good standing. The 6,000 figure does appear to be quoted by both sides (per above discussion). Globalsecurity cites this source and at p 571 it gives a figure of 1,500. Unless there are substantial reasons to dispute the source, I would have no issue in amending both the infobox and body of the article to "1,500–6,000", citing the source I have given, in addition to those already cited. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Going by the sources on the internet, and the time of this war, none of the sources can be deemed reliable . The 6000 casualties source is cited by an article of The News 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 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 and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar not questioned ? 1,500 certainly deserves to be included in the info box, as a somewhat acceptable term. 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)

As well as the existing sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:10, 2 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)

Saying that reliable sources have mirrored Misplaced Pages does not make it so, and attempts to muddy the waters are unconstructive. Global security org is not a reliable source for war casualties, not to mention the contradiction with other RS. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no consensus for global security being unreliable on RSN or anywhere else. Cipher21 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, after reading through RSN, as well as Truthwins018's and SpicyBiryani's comments above, I have learnt that it is widely cited by RS such as Reuters and The New York Times (as well as numerous articles and books). Cipher21 (talk) 18:15, 6 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)

Globalsecurity.org is a web site, not a published work. It is user-contributed, much like Misplaced Pages. If the information is not well-sourced or signed with a recognizable author, you can't use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

GlobalSecurity.org is not a user-contributed website like Misplaced Pages. Where'd you get that from? Cipher21 (talk) 10:11, 8 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 alreadyTruthwins018 (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The wording in the India Country Study and globalsecurity.org are identical. So we can assume it is the same information that has been duplicated.

It is just a made-up figure pulled out of hair. For instance, what is meant by "soldiers" for the Pakistani side? The Indian figure, though unsatisfactory, would at least be based on some ground information. I would be fine to label it as "Indian claim". The 1,500 figure is not worth bothering about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 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)

The handbook furnished revolves around a general theme of the country India and touches on the war at issue in passing, with no reference to any source for the casualty figures. Unless better sources are provided, the existing content will stay as is as undergirded by reliable sources. The handbook fails WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Research gate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235932742_THE_FIRST_INDO-PAKISTANI_WAR_1947-48. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
"Global security.org figures". Globalsecurity.org.
"THE FIRST INDO-PAKISTANI WAR, 1947-48" (PDF). Academia.
"The News". The News.
"Federal Research Division Library of Congress Edited by James Heitzman and Robert L. Worden Research Completed September" (PDF). Federal Research Division Library of Congress Edited by James Heitzman and Robert L. Worden Research Completed September.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-says-it-sent-monkey-into-space.html
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=globalsecurity.org&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
https://www.educreation.in/store/sample/eBook12016E.pdf

Categories: