Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:30, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. This article was last assessed in December 2006. Pakistan Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

It is requested that a map or maps, showing the course of the war, and the positions and territories occupied by the parties at the time of the ceasefire, be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in India or Pakistan may be able to help!

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 22, 2007, September 22, 2008, September 22, 2013, September 22, 2015, and September 22, 2018.

Result field

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.

Listed below are twenty (20) scholarly sources that make the case that the India-Pakistan wars of 1947 and 1965 were military stalemates. Some sources while pronouncing the judgment of military stalemate also consider some strategic or political advantages accruing to India in the 1965 war. By "scholarly" I mean the university presses and in addition Routledge, Wiley, Palgrave, Springer, and Hurst. I have not included trade paperbacks published by Harper Collins, Vintage, and so forth. Here is the list, which I have collapsed on account of its length:

I have now added 20 sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources with Google Scholar Citation Index >= 50 in the above list=_50_in_the_above_list-Result_field-2019-03-26T12:56:00.000Z">

Reduced from first list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)=_50_in_the_above_list"> =_50_in_the_above_list">

Discussion

See WP:CHERRYPICKING. You mention Christine Fair, who actually says six decades despite the fact that Pakistan has either lost outright or failed to defeat India in every war they have fought. at Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, p. 31. Aman Goel (talk) 14:54 UTC, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan as experienced in its lost wars with India in 1948, 1965, and 1971." Falling Terrorism and Rising Conflicts: The Afghan "Contribution" to Polarization and Confrontation in West and South Asia, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. -- Aman Goel (talk) 15:00 UTC, March 24, 2019

Failing to defeat India includes instances of stalemate. It does not constitute victory for India or defeat or disaster for Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Aman, you are doing the cherrypicking here. Its only one source vs many. AshLin (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fowler cites a source that actually says that Paksitan lost all wars or failed to defeat India. That's WP:CHERRYPICKING, to point out only the particular narrative which supports your POV from the same source. 03:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman.kumar.goel (talk • contribs)

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the "result" of the 1947–48 war. Both India and Pakistan war British dominions, their armed forces were commanded by British officers and London was pulling the strings from behind the scenes. The "result" was as such what London could live with.

As for the 1965 war, there was a long-time consensus that it was a stalemate, but it seems to have been mostly based on the fact that Tashkent Agreement reverted to the status quo ante bellum and neither side was able to claim any advantage. The "fog of war" had lasted for a long time (as it usually does in all Indo-Pakistani conflicts). Nobody even knew what territory was gained or lost by the two sides. But when people drilled down into the details, they definitely saw the advantage India possessed, which it gave up voluntarily. Please see the discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The best commentary I have seen is this:

Most important, Shastri was honest and above board in peace as he had been in war, projecting India as a powerful but good neighbour instead of the intolerant, unbudgeable centre of the world.

If that is not victory then I don't know what is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Praagh, David Van (2003), The Greater Game: India's Race with Destiny and China, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, p. 297, ISBN 978-0-7735-2639-6

I'm afraid I can't respond to your interpretations. The sources are clear. Both wars were military stalemates. That is Stephen Cohen's judgment as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RGW, since that is exactly what you are doing. Also read WP:GEVAL. We are not going to create a false balance unless your "sources are clear" that Pakistan won this war. So far sources speak India won, not Pakistan. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make false allegations about what I am doing. I am a competent editor. I am the major contributor to the India page, as well as the author of its major sections, including history, in its FA runs. I am the major contributor to the Kashmir page. I know what scholarly consensus is, and the fifteen sources adduced above constitute a scholarly consensus that the war ended in a stalemate. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, if I went harsh. But you jumping from one side of argument to other yet staying rigidly on one line enraged me. Nevertheless, discussion can go in any direction, there was a key word "most" and not "all" for the battles involved inside wars. The "stalemate" you are talking about, I mentioned in one of my initial responses. It was "military damage" inflicted on India most certainly and not any other gains.

Your edits on other pages have no bearing on what you are doing here. If we look at your "fifteen" sources, we find enough of them to be about military damage and not actual victory. And finally none say Pakistan won. You need to understand the very basic that failure to achieve the purpose in the war is a defeat. I can write a line India won all wars or Pakistan lost most may be called undiplomatic and biased by you. But you can't put a line Pakistan won most or even Pakistan did not lose most of wars as that would clearly be contradicting sources. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. If the sentence "defeat or disaster" is offensive, there may be a mild sentence not ended up in favour Pakistan. But still it should be there as it provides summary of conflicts to the reader before he goes deep into article. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand. No source is saying the war ended in a Pakistani victory. They are saying that the two wars, of 1947-49 and 1965 ended in a military stalemate. They do not support a judgment of an Indian victory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And in fact that is the main point. Sources don't say Pakistan won the war, they say India won the war. Maybe not all of your sources say India won the war but there are tons of academic sources that certainly do, and Misplaced Pages needs to report that unless same number exists for claiming that Pakistan won the war which they clearly didn't. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree here with Kautilya3 and Aman Goel that sources exists for saying that India won the war and such number of sources are in fact huge in amount..It will depend on the consensus whether we need to include "stalemate" or "Indian victory" but there is no reason to ignore "Indian victory" which is a mainstream academic view of these wars. Current consensus supports Indian victory and a new consensus cannot be formed without an RFC. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• If the scholarly sources are "huge in amount," then it should be no problem finding them. Thus far there are only two or three scholarly ones (ie academic presses) that suggest this. I already have 15 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  While I agree with you that a majority of academic sources do agree that the 1965 war was a stalemate, I have to call out a few bad sources in your list. The ninth source by Weeks, Jessica L. P. makes the exceptional claim that India initiated both 1947 and 1965 wars. This is so far out of the mainstream opinion that I'd have to discount the source itself as POV for making that claim. The eleventh source can be shown as supporting either side of the argument by highlighting particular sentences. The same applies to the fifteenth source too.

  A binary discussion about Indian victory/stalemate seems reductive, as a sizeable minority of sources declare Indian victory. Even among the majority declaring stalemate, many sources attribute an upper hand to India in one way or the other. Anyway, this discussion about 1965 war should really be happening on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page, considering its higher visibility and that the last consensus was reached there. —Gazoth (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: This is not a binary discussion; only one adduced for whether the sentence "Most wars ended in defeat or disaster for Pakistan." which had been added to this page's lead, but removed later, can be re-introduced. You are incorrectly using the word "many sources attribute an upper hand." In the 15 sources I have presented only four (4)—numbers 10, 11, 12, and 15—mention anything more than a straightforward stalemate. The other page has a separate issue. It has a "Military conflict infobox." If the war has ended in a military stalemate, that is what we enter. If there is dispute among the sources, then we simply add "inconclusive." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, since you disputed the infobox result and linked this discussion from 1965 war page, the origin of the discussion does not matter. As for only four sources supporting an Indian upper hand, it is only four among the parts that you quoted. For example, in Fighting to the End, Fair writes

On September 20, 1965, with the war rapidly approaching a stalemate, the UNSC passed a resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities. India conceded, but on political, not military, grounds: it could have sustained the conflict and turned the stalemate into an outright victory (Raghavan 2009). Pakistan was even more willing to settle: military setbacks had cost Ayub his will to continue fighting (Ganguly 2001; Nawaz 2008a).

Plenty of the sources that you quoted don't dedicate more than a few sentences to the 1965 war, and two (8 and 9) don't even have a full sentence on it. It is unreasonable to compare them on equal grounds with the rest. —Gazoth (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gazoth: Sources which devote no more than a few sentences are more relevant to a discussion whose object is to consider the ultimate in due weight in the form of one "outcome," "victory or defeat." Monographs or journal articles on the 1965 war will by their very nature make either more complex judgments or more limited judgments, depending on their own focus. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP which says, "Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. ... Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." A book, such as my reference 8, by Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (Google Scholar citation index 1140), which declares the war to be a draw, in one sentence, or my reference number 5, (Google scholar citation index 450) which is similarly brief, the considerations of weight are made by the authors, and vetted by the review process to which such books are subjected. In contrast, a single study, such as my 15 the reference (Google scholar citation index 21) is less reliable for issues of weight. The later references which you mention have been deliberately added by me to show the full range of the non-military, i.e. political and strategic, advantages at the end of the war. Contrast that with the sources used in the Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 RfC, as evidence of an undisputed Indian victory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Fowler - Since your only issue is that we can't find sources for supporting Indian victory then you must read Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox as already linked above by Kautilya3 on 17:24, 24 March 2019. More than a dozen high-quality source had been provided there which supports either Indian victory or decisive Indian victory. Like I said, there is no reason to omit that. Additionally the sources you cited even though list the war as ending in stalemate merely state so because both sides retreated to their earlier positions. That does not always mean one side did or did not win the war - just that both sides retreated because of Tashkent accord to maintain peace. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have already looked at those sources. Their are six. Kux doesn't count as he is not making the claim of an Indian military victory. It is "Infobox military conflict" after all, so victory means military victory. Your sources are not particularly weighty. Their Google Scholar citation indices are lower than most of my sources. Here are a few Van Praagh: Greater Game. Citation Index 16, McGarr: Cold War in South Asia. Citation index 49; Conley: Indo-Russian military .... Citation index 28; Haggerty: South Asia in World Politics. Citation index 50. Contrast them with the citation indices of some of my sources which state that the war ended in a stalemate. Nayar: India in the World Order. CI 374; Sisson: War and Secession. CI 450; Rudolph and Rudolph: In search of Lakshmi. CI 1140; and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• This contention about an Indian military victory is not at all true. The 1965 war was not a military victory for India, at most we can say that India had an advantageous position at the time of its conclusion. And while I do understand that this is not "evidence" as understood by WP, I have been the Director of the Corps of Engineers Archives & Museum in CME, Pune for almost 7 years and have domain knowledge not just because I was a military man but was a military historian too. This is a faux nationalist POV bashing by a few editors and does India's military history and the interests of this encyclopedia no good. AshLin (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am from Pakistan and I can assure you that Fowler&fowler is lying and deceiving. Pakistan thought that it is gonna win the war with funding from UK and the US but it had to beg India for the ceasefire and India returned the land it won during the war. This was such a humiliating defeat for Pakistan that Pakistan never "directly" fought India or ever thought about invading India with military. Next war of 1971 happened only when Pakistanis started engaging in genocide of Bangladesh and Indians saved them. To say this was a "stalemate" is erroneous and POV pushing. 39.42.10.113 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• More sources supporting Indian victory in 1965 war:

1. ""trends accelerated after "Pakistan's defeat in 1965"
2. "India defeated Pakistan in 1965"
3. "The two fought again in 1965 and in 1971 and Pakistan lost both wars"
4. "India's victorious success in the 1965 war"
5. "A three-week war in 1965 resulted in an Indian victory."
6. "Pakistan as experienced in its lost wars with India in 1948, 1965, and 1971"
7. "In South Asia, Pakistan lost the 1965 war with India."
8. "Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, which saw the largest tank-battle since the Second World War, was a strategic win for India"
9. "in its 1965 war... India defeated Pakistan again".
10. "Pakistan experienced defeat by India in war over Kashmir immediately after independence in 1947, again in 1965"
11. "This was proved during the 1965 Indo-Pak war when India defeated Pakistan comprehensively."
12. "Pakistanis who had relied on their armoured superiority to defeat the Indian Army but, in turn, were defeated."
13. "1965: India defeated Pakistan"
14. "In 1965, a war erupted between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Although India won this war"
15. "during the war of 1965, in which India defeated Pakistan in twenty-one days".
16. "India defeated Pakistan in 1965"
17. "on September 23, just seventeen days after the war began, Pakistan was defeated."
18. "India's relative victory in two Indo-Pakistan wars on Kashmir in 1948 and 1965"
19. "lost face with his defeat in 1965"
20. "Pakistan attempted the 1965 aggression. The domestic unrest was aggravated and so did antipathy towards India after they lost in 1965 war."
21. "Pakistan's defeat in 1965 finally contributed to the secession of 1971"

Above high-quality reliable sources easily outnumber the sources from Fowler, many of which Fowler appears to have misunderstood as pointed by Gazoth. Now including the sources that we see on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, most of which are very great in quality, we clearly have more than enough reliable sources to establish Indian victory as the outcome of 1965 war. This dispute started after Fowler reverted Gotitbro who had restored the sourced content.

Also take a look at: Nitin A Gokhale. 1965 Turning the Tide. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 224. ISBN 9789386141217. This book has analysed the arguments about the conclusion of the war and said that "there is only one conclusion: India won the war."

Now unless Fowler can find such sources that fulfill WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and/or offer opposite views such as "Pakistani victory", I see no reason to keep debating about this. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now created a reduced list of sources with Google Scholar Citation Index greater than or equal to 50. Please see Talk:Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts#Sources_with_Google_Scholar_Citation_Index_>=_50_in_the_above_list. Please note WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which states, " One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context." In a few minutes, I will present the citation index of the sources presented by @Aman.kumar.goel:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So, the entire debate has been circular and back to the point we had two sections ago. Please don't open another section now.

* There has been open showcasing of POV and narrative pushing. The summarizing sentence initially was removed for using "unencylopedic" language and was restored as neutrality and not "diplomatic narration" is Misplaced Pages's policy. Edit warring was started creating the row here and the perpetrating member has been jumping from one side to other side of argument continuously (See: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). The sources which were put in another article after a complete consensus were tagged as "dubious" without offering any contradiction to the outcome of the war. After switching aspects, there was an irrelevant complaint of "not enough Pakistani members being here". The member however outrightly rejects my allegations. The nature of set of actions involved make it perfectly consistent with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For the other article, consensus was made when a fairl number of Pakistani members were involved. I, however maintain my position to restore the summarizing sentence with more encyclopaedic language if not as it is, citing clear sources, describing sources provided by others and explaining changing aspects/contexts from "diplomatic language", literal framing of sentence, number of sources cited, changing the contexts and providing quality sources where I have got lead the argument one by one. The latest one is about scholar index which I'm yet to explain. I can't use my original research as per rules. Nevertheless, I have continuously being contradicting misinterpretations. Hence, I also reject allegations on me and fellow members by @Fowler&fowler: for PoV pushing what we haven't been doing since start but he has been doing by WP:CHERRYPICKING and misinterpreting the sources.

* There was a keyword most and not all, the argument enough to settle down the discussion. The statement India won most wars is accepted and cited by dozens of sources on this talk page while Pakistan won most of wars or even Pakistan did not lose of most wars isn't even summary of a neutral observer (ignored in this discussion). India and Pakistan had three official wars and multiple unofficial conflicts where India has secured the outcome completely or incompletely in its favour. Hence, even if the one is led to believe that any one or two of conflicts was stalemate, the line most of these wars should be perfectly consistent for him if he's being neutral.

* WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is most important here as the particular member is not only misinterpreting losses context as military context and pushing this irrelevant context wrongfully ahead of purpose context in Second Kashmir War but unknowingly or deliberately ignoring the same in First Kashmir war.

* I will vote First Kashmir War as stalemate despite the fact that India was having upper hand militarily by a very large margin as purpose of both countries were not achieved completely and ended up dividing the land. My agreement on this is not enough yet to reject Pakistan lost most wars because 1947-48 war wasn't only one. It was followed by 1965, 1971, Siachen Conflict and Kargil War.

* 1965 War was purposeful and informally (Kashmir infiltration) & formally initiated by Pakistan with Operation Gibraltar. The conflict ended with UN intervention when both countries had nearly same number of losses with India having slightly upper hand. But it ended up at a time when attack on Kashmir was already thwarted and India was advancing inside Pakistan, capturing a large chunk of their territory. Moreover, there has already been a source above mentioning that India was going to turn the losses gap wide and military superiority if war continued. As the Pakistan didn't achieve what it wanted at all, incurred heavy military losses and defeated politically & diplomatically, war can't be termed as stalemate. Gap in losses is not a correct and actually irrelevant when you are assessing the result of war. By applying this, First Kashmir will be a clear Indian Victory which in fact had limited success. The result of war is judged by its outcome. It's not necessary that everything should have grey shades. Some things are either black or white only and multiple perspectives aren't involved there. So, is the victory in an expeditionary war.

* Not much relevant to our discussion but it may help to judge the source itself:

"Second, despite the considerable relative power advantage that India seemed to enjoy on paper, it soon became apparent that New Delhi was not going to emerge as a local hegemon that could dominate South Asia, if it managed to achieve a victory at all. Rather, the Second Kashmir War demonstrated to U.S. officials that India would remain preoccupied with Pakistan because it was not yet strong enough to break free of the balance of power on the subcontinent. In short, the hegemonic power shift that was taking place was incomplete. This, in turn, forced Washington to revise its earlier assessments and reconsider its regional strategy.

The above narrative of "containing Indian hegemony" belongs solely to Pakistani intellectuals, scholars and political scientists. Islamic Republic of Pakistan sees itself as a balance of India in Indian Subcontinent meanwhile Republic of India who alone comprises 74% of population, 76% of landmass and 80% of economy of region has its concerns and sphere of militray capabilities and assets spread around the entire Indian Ocean Region while narrative among Indian Scholars is to establish India as a great power. The narrative often runs among Indian defence enthusiasts and scholars to "ignore and dehyphenate" Pakistan till Pakistan makes it impossible for India to ignore it. To find if writer on Indian Ocean Region contexts is Indian/Pakistani/some foreigner with bias towards either of them, you just may check the narratives to judge. Here is a Pakistani analyst on Indian foreign policy that may help you to understand. "Difficult Equation". The Dawn. October 9, 2019. Retrieved March 27, 2019.

* While you were busy changing "narrative" in the article, you said Balakot adventure was a retaliation of Pulwama episode. Yesterday in an interview, India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval denied and said that strikes were pre planned and Pulwama's retribution has not been attained yet. So its better if the "retaliation" is removed from the article.

* In the end, I understand that Most of these wars have ended up with defeat or disaster for Pakistan may sound offensive or biased. The sentence may be replaced with milder version not ended up with favour of Pakistan but not removal at all. It puts the summary of history of conflicts beforehand. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

I think Fowler&fowler's compilation of sources shows that the scholarly consensus still prefers "stalemate" as the result of the 1965 war. So I propose that the 1965 war page be reverted to what it was before this edit, and this page modified accordingly. I also think the sentiment expressed in this scholarly view

Most important, Shastri was honest and above board in peace as he had been in war, projecting India as a powerful but good neighbour instead of the intolerant, unbudgeable centre of the world.

should be respected. The contrary views expressed by other scholars can also be summarised in the body, but not unduly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But there are dozens of sources that more accurately support Indian victory in the war. Any discussion about changing the outcome must be initiated at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. I would recommend initiating WP:RFC as there are enough citations for supporting either parameter. Not this page. Orientls (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous change was made by local consensus, not an RfC. So I am not sure why we need an RfC now. Since the discussion is taking place here, it would be best to conclude it here as well. I will make a post there inviting comments. As for sources, yes, there are dozens of sources for both the results. I am asking editors to review all of them to the extent of their ability and interest, and provide their input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support the following words in the infobox outcome, which is in keeping with @AshLin:'s assessment: "Military stalemate (with India possessing a military advantage at the time of conclusion, and somewhat greater political advantage)." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan lost the war and started engaging in proxy terrorism against India after seeing humiliating defeat in 1965. Don't censor this. 39.42.89.236 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support this wording too. —Gazoth (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fowler's references fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS unlike few I provided right above as well as all those provided at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, which are of great quality.

I will analyze more when I get time but so far Fowler's sources have failed WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and they are being misrepresented. Interpreting what the source says as 'stalemate' is a clear misrepresentation. There are many reliable sources out there that says the same thing but nonetheless notes that India was a clear victor in the war, if not decisive clearly won the war, if not decisively*. This is something that was mentioned in the discussion at the main article's talk page as well. I am opposing this proposal. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are four sources, authored by political scientists, which speak to the nuances implicit in my proposal above, the first three giving a sense of the political or psychological advantage garnered by India and the last offering a binary (or really tri-nary) result. In this last reference, some editors might be surprised by India being listed as the "initiator" in both Kashmir wars, but I suspect this is because the authors do not consider infiltration to constitute initiating, especially in a disputed region, i.e. Kashmir, only crossing the international border (airlifting Indian troops to Kashmir in 1947), or crossing the international border into Punjab in 1965. Regardless, this is a highly cited source, as you will see, and makes the one-word judgment of Win/lose/draw.

Well, the thing that you don't understand is that it doesn't matter whether a source is highly cited or not, but whether it's reliable for a particular claim, which is determined by WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Your last source is a perfect example of why we don't rely on such sources which discuss a subject only in passing, and why we have policies like the one I just mentioned. Now, I won't even go telling how preposterous your justification is for using such a source peddling fringe theories in passing, because I don't need to. The policy is clear on this. Orientls (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• More analysis:

Ref 12 is a book on cease-fire agreements in general by a political science professor (not a military historian!) and of the total 243 pages, it barely has a single page on 1965 war. Clearly not a high quality sources of the likes of which were presented during the discussion at the main article's talk page. Furthermore, this source too is being misrepresented as it only says that the "war quickly reached a military stalemate", not that it ended in a military stalemate (those are two different things), and then goes to say that "Pakistan was beginning to run out of ammunition, and could see that the war would turn to favor India over the long haul."

Ref 11 has a single paragraph each on the 1965 and other wars. Hardly a quality source for the claim that war ended in a military stalemate, because it doesn't analyzes the war comprehensively like sources cited at the main article's talk page. Just a single paragraph, basically it's just providing a brief summary of each wars -- the likes of which, like I showed, exists in numbers for the claim that India won the war decisively too.

Ref 13, again, is a handbook on Asian Security and the cited page hardly has a single paragraph on the 1965 war. Yet another source making passing mention. This won't pass muster, like others.

Ref 14 is a book solely dedicated to the Kargil conflict; it is not a reliable source for anything related to the 1965 war, about which it contains just a single sentence anyway "India and Pakistan fought their second war over Kashmir in 1965, the outcome of which was another stalemate". Enough said.

Fowler cites a reference (vide, "In Dixit, J. N. (2003), India-Pakistan in War and Peace") that despite saying that there was "no decisive military victory for either side" concurs that strategically India emerged victorious in the war.

More on this; vide, "In Hewitt, Vernon (1997), The New International Politics of South Asia: Second Edition": it's not a quality reliable source for the claim made either, because it devotes just a single paragraph on the entire war. Easily fails the relevant RS policy.

To say that such sources outweigh the ones which do comprehensively cover the war in dozens of pages is just pointless. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Orientls: Please do explain how two authors who are leaders in the field of Democratic peace theory, have written a book cited by 1,100 scholarly articles in Google Scholar, whose paradigmatic example illustrating their work in the book, along with the Second World War, is the India-Pakistan war of 1971, and in turn whose five page discussion on pages 33 to 38, they begin with,

who, in addition, mention wars relating to India and Pakistan on a dozen other pages—do not fit the context. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: In light of your critique above, "Ref 7, again, is a book on an unrelated subject: the political economy of India, and hardly has a one line passing mention. This is also not a good quality source." please explain how Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, the authors of Ref 7, whose book is cited by 1,143 scholarly articles, also don't fit the context when the describe the 1965 war variously on several pages as a draw, a military failure, or disappointment for India, but call the 1971 war a victory for India.

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: Please compress your two lengthy replies involving sources (above) in the manner I have done with the template "compress top/bottom"). It becomes very difficult to keep track of this thread for other interested users. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Praagh, David Van (2003), The Greater Game: India's Race with Destiny and China, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, p. 297, ISBN 978-0-7735-2639-6

I've already explained it, and so have other people here. As with other references you posted, this book's theme too is nowhere related to the military history of India, let alone the war of 1965 between India and Pakistan. As its title and description reads, it focuses on the subject of India's political economy. I cannot help you if you want to keep pretending otherwise. There is nothing substantial whatsoever in the book with regards to the war of 1965 apart from the hardly-one-line passing mention. Heck, that mention too is in the context of the events leading up to the Congress's poor electoral performance in the late 1960s in general and the fourth general elections in 1967 in particular, of which events such as  China's attack in 1962, the 1965 war with Pakistan, the droughts in 1965 and in 1966 played a crucial role in undermining the congres system in that period -- all of these thus expectedly had mentions in that book. If you think the book gives us anything substantial about the war in particular, you need to show where by linking to the particular page(s). The sources I provided and a few of yours as well in fact confirm that both sides had some losses and wars end up with ceasefire one day but this war involved a victory and a defeat. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS we can't omit this necessary part. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• 4. "India's victorious success in the 1965 war" in Foreign Policy of India, 7th edition, Vikas Publications, Delhi (Google Scholar Citation Index: 44) Author: V N Khanna Formerly Reader in Political Science, Deshbandhu College University of Delhi
• 5. "A three-week war in 1965 resulted in an Indian victory." The Genocide Debate: Politicians, Academics, and Victims (Google Scholar Citation Index: 23) Author: Donald W. Beachler, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Ithaca College, New York.
• 7. "In South Asia, Pakistan lost the 1965 war with India." The Eagle and the Peacock: U.S. Foreign Policy Toward India Since Independence (Google Scholar Citation Index: 35) Author: M. SRINIVAS CHARY is Adjunct Professor at the New School of Social Research in New York.
• 11. "This was proved during the 1965 Indo-Pak war when India defeated Pakistan comprehensively."India and the Dynamics of World Politics: A book on Indian Foreign Policy Pearson Education, Delhi (Google Scholar Citation Index: 7) Author: Reetika Sharma has been involved in free lance writing on the implications of recent policy initiatives on related social, political, and economics spheres. She has been associated with reputed institutes guiding students for civil services exams contributed significantly to the success of many candidates. (From back cover of book.)
• 13. "1965: India defeated Pakistan"Illustrated History of Women, Volume 10 (Google Scholar Citation Index 0)

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources I provided were aimed to count if your "15 sources" can be outnumbered and it was not even difficult. We are clear now that enough sources agree that India won the war. When we discuss the qualified sources for discussing the results then Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox already had enough quality sources that we didn't needed another discussion. You are beating a dead horse unless you can provide sources which surpass that great quality of sources. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: You say, "the sources were aimed to count if your '15 sources' can be outnumbered." Could you please clarify what this means, which Misplaced Pages guideline (from WP:POLICYLIST) recommends it, and what relation this bears to military history, which I failed to comprehend in my brief career as a military history reviewer? What Misplaced Pages principle of congruence balances Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph's magnum opus with a book whose author is described on its back cover as, "--- has been involved in free lance writing on the implications of recent policy initiatives on related social, political, and economics spheres. She has been associated with reputed institutes guiding students for civil services exams contributed significantly to the success of many candidate.?" Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Why you are collapsing my analysis of your sources. As a matter of policy, you shouldn't be doing that without my consent per WP:REFACTOR; and the comments aren't as long as you pretend anyway. You seem to be intransigent as far as your sources are concerned, which doesn't really help. We don't normally use sources which provide information about a subject, which isn't related to the principal topics of the source, in passing. Most of your sources fall in that category as shown above. It's incumbent on you to look at what context the source is making that particular statement about that subject. That's even more the case when the thing being argued upon is a result of an India-Pakistan war. Again, this is accepted widely as a matter of policy. Wikilawyering doesn't help either. As with any other article on a major war, there is no dearth of in-depth analysis of the war in reliable sources, as also evidenced by the laundry list of such sources in use for the current result in the article. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I have uncollapsed your analysis. Please accept my sincere apologies. However, let us stick to Military History. Again, you say, "the sources were aimed to count if your '15 sources' can be outnumbered." Could you please clarify what this means, which Misplaced Pages guideline (from WP:POLICYLIST) recommends it, and what relation this bears to military history, one which I failed to comprehend in my brief career as a military history reviewer? What Misplaced Pages principle of congruence balances Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph's magnum opus with 1143 Google Scholar citations with a book, with 7 Google Scholar citations, whose author is described on its back cover as, "--- has been involved in free lance writing on the implications of recent policy initiatives on related social, political, and economics spheres. She has been associated with reputed institutes guiding students for civil services exams contributed significantly to the success of many candidate.?" Please no WP:Weasel answers. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

First, sorry for replying late as I'm running too busy at office. Second, I have actually quoted many high quality sources which includes dedicated analysts who have spent their careers studying Indo Pakistani conflicts to institutions like Oxford University, Colombia University, Routledge. Now, we both rush to outnumber each others' sources and start to bring political scientists here after military historians, I don't think its going to help discussion in any way. I cited WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for a very good reason. The sources you quoted assert stalemate were all suggesting Military stalemate on the basis of close & heavy losses on both sides. Pakistan didn't get its purpose served in any way. There is no single source that unambiguously can state that Pakistan won the war or there was any stalemate except the context of extent of losses. 1965 war had a purpose for Pakistan and blocking the same purpose was the aim of India. I find no way to call it stalemate while it stopped after UN intervention during Indian expedition. 11:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman.kumar.goel (talk • contribs)

Break

However, I do know of the work of Daniel Marston, Professor of Military History, Australian National University, and formerly Ike Skelton Distinguished Chair in the Art of War at the US Army Command and General Staff College., and author of many books on military history:

Here is Marston and Sundaram's detailed verdict on the War of 1965:

Also pinging @Winged Blades of Godric:. I have to now write narrative prose in place of a list in the other article per promise made to @Gazoth: Also pinging @Kautilya3:, @RegentsPark:, @AshLin: for general wisdom, as I fear by the time I'm done, too much time will have been spent over something fairly simple. And I would rather not do a formal RfC and advertise at WT:INDIA, Military History Project, Village Pump, etc Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally, I found a second, very recent, military history account: Gates, Scott; Roy, Kaushik (2017), "Chapter 4 The Second India-Pakistan War: 1965", Limited War in South Asia: From Decolonization to Recent Times, Routledge Series in Military Strategy and Operational Art, Taylor & Francis, pp. 65–86, ISBN 978-1-317-10500-8 This book has a very detailed description and assessment. It asseses the war to have been equally waged. Here are some excerpts:

Neither book is in the article's citations or bibliography. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've waded through the superfluity of sources with a fine-toothed comb, and having done that, I also agree with the conclusion that, notwithstanding the excessive amount, the sources presented here won't suffice to usurp the present result parameter of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 article: virtually all these sources offer nothing significant but mere passing mentions of the war's result at issue in the context unrelated to the war. Even if we leave aside for the moment the fact that the policy on reliable sources encourages excluding such sources making passing mentions, there is even a precedent for this vis-à-vis the aforementioned article itself; vide Adamgerber80's comment here. I further warn Fowler to stop WP:CANVASSING. Orientls (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Orientls: I have 30 times the edits on WP than you do; indeed I have more edits in the FA India than you have on Misplaced Pages. If you think I don't know what canvassing it, please take me to ANI. Please also read WP:Weasel and write clearly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I stand by my proposal to go back to the old consensus which said Inconclusive, both sides claim victory. I don't think we will have consensus for anything more definitive. I am afraid the fog of war continues. I also can't disentangle political, military and diplomatic aspects to say, one was stalemate, one was victory etc. The military part of it was really a draw, not a "stalemate", because India had the staying power while Pakistan did not. All the scholars that say "stalemate" are basically following an old script and don't have any interest to examine it in any more depth. I am not sure why we should have so much interest in it either. All the war pages are in despicable shape. If we have energy, we should try and improve them instead of fighting over the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: "Inconclusive" is fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

PS Why do you think Marston and Sundaram make the determination of "stalemate?" Not sure India had the staying power. I think it is revisionist history produced by Indian historians based on a lot of surmising about information they claim Shastri did not have or was not given. India's more enhanced economic and military condition today should not blind us to the fact that both India and Pakistan in 1965 were impoverished nations on the periphery of the world order, no matter how many Bandungs Nehru had been to. The Bihar famine, which the Indian government continued to call a drought, was only two years away, as were the US airlifts of wheat. Btw, its not the infobox, I wasn't even much aware of it. Its the lead; and the section whose summary the lead purportedly is. That is the bigger worry for me.

PPS I just became aware that the Hindu nationalists decided to celebrate it in 2015, creating no doubt a climate of opinion in India. The same time that the slant in the article began. Check the lead before 2015. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

PPPS And here is the one paragraph summary of the war in the Oxford Companion to Military History. This is for enhancing my own understanding and and as a resource for future use, not for changing minds about the silly infobox.

According to Srinath Raghavan doi:10.1080/01402390802407616, only 14% of India's "frontline ammunition" had been spent, but the COAS J. N. Chaudhuri told Shastri that all of it had been mostly spent. Whether he had bad information or he deliberately misinformed Shastri, I can't say. He seems to be an old school gu,y brought up in the British Indian Army, who was basically after status quo, not an adventurer. He saw the Indian campaign as basically a defensive action, to remove the threat to Kashmir posed by the Operation Grand Slam. The Sialkot campaign, with its meagre gains, achieved that, and there was no need to continue fighting any more. The Sialkot campaign had the chance to achieve a decisive victory, but it blew it. There was nothing more to be done about it. The Lahore Front was a side show. Chaudhuri has said that India didn't have the strength to take Lahore or to hold it afterwards. Even though it had a big psychological advantage, that is not where the action was.

Not only was India a poor country, as you say, but the military had also been assigned a very marginal role in the society in the Nehru era. It was mostly starved for funds. Reason dictates that Akhnur should have been strengthened and alternative bridges built over Chenab. But it looks like they didn't have the funds for such things. We saw how badly equipped they were when they went to fight in the Himalayas. So, blowing more money and men in a pointless war wasn't in anybody's interest.

The relations with Pakistan were also not bad. Ayub Khan was a decent President, mostly focused on domestic development. He even offered to team up with India to fight the Chinese threat (and it was Nehru that rejected the offer). So I don't think Pakistan was thought of as an "enemy" as it is today. So, the Indians rightly assessed the magnitude of the threat, and acted accordingly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It was the 14% story I was referring to. It has been around in the Official (Indian) History of the 1965 War, long before Raghavan. No one other than some Indian historians believe it. What are the chances that only 14% of ammunition was used and neither the General nor the prime minister knew? And the outside chance that that did really happen, the war still ended in a stalemate, at the time it ended. "If ifs and buts," as my late mother-in-law use to say, "were candy and nuts, My what a Christmas we'd have." You did not answer my question about why Marston and Sundaram make a clear unambiguous judgment of stalemate. Anyway, on that note, I should add, I really am looking to find the more contemporary military history sources. Any help will be appreciated, especially about work by military historians from outside the subcontinent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Marston and Sundaram were the editors of the book. The passage you quoted is most likely from the chapter by Bhashyam Kasturi, of which Yaqoob Khan Bangash wrote:

In the post-1947 section of the volume, there is a chapter on India’s ‘State of war with Pakistan,’ by Bhashyam Kasturi which, based wholly on already published Indian sources, adds little to our understanding of the conflict.

I thought it was off the mark from the very first line of your quote, where he says "Punjab" whereas he should have said "Jammu" or "Kashmir".

For the 14% ammunition info, Raghavan gave two sources (the other being Palit). The official history itself cites multiple sources. It certainly reflects the poor state of organisation in the Indian Army, which the official history is taking pains to highlight. Note that it calls the result of the war a draw. The present campaign to turn into a "victory" is certain driven by BJP. But Indians are actively debating it. See for example, Indo-Pak war: Snatching a draw from the jaws of victory in 1965, Hindustan Times, 13 September 2015.

If you are inclined to believe that India did run out of ammunition, then I wonder what you make of this information, according to Pakistan's Air Marshal Nur Khan:

General Ayub was told on the second day of the war by the Army Chief, General Musa Khan, that the Army had even run out of ammunition.

This is covered in Ahmed, Ishtiaq (2013), Pakistan – The Garrison State: Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947-2011), Oxford University Press Pakistan, ISBN 978-0-19-906636-0. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks, first of all, for the article. I have the book here. I ordered the kindle version soon after I made the first post. I realized right away the error I made, but felt then I didn't want to confuse readers by going back and changing the citation with chapter info. I should have. The important thing is it has been vetted. It has a foreword by Stephen P. Cohen who says,

The chapter moreover has Kaushik's Roy's reasonably positive recommendation. See here.

As for the rest, a draw is a judgment; a stalemate is a condition. All stalemates end in draws, but not all draws result from stalemates. When they don't it is either because the player (the terminology is originally from chess) has miscalculated his options or is deliberately throwing the game away. (OED: stalemate: A position in which the player whose turn it is to move has no allowable move open to him, but has not his king in check. According to modern rules, the game which ends in stalemate is drawn.) India had no allowable moves open to it in 1965, whether Pakistan did or not is unimportant. No one is saying India lost. The 14% theory assumes that having access to 76% more ammo would have drastically changed the outcome, not waiting to consider that there's a lot more to war than having ammunition. First there is the question of what's on the books and what is fit for service (see quotes below). Secondly, they don't consider other factors, for example, that the Indian Air Force had taken a beating; the Chinese were champing at the bit to punish India again. All those things determine a stalemate. A recent paper by a sharp military historian, Rudra Chaudhuri speaks to this. See:

Rudra Chaudhuri (2018), "Indian "Strategic Restraint" Revisited: The Case of the 1965 India-Pakistan War", India Review, 17 (1): 55–75 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |special issue= ignored (help)

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is a nice article and in fact the first full-length scholarly discussion of the war we are seeing in this discussion. I have no problem with the conclusions drawn in this paper. But I also note that the paper fully supports my contention when it says:

Rather, as previously evidenced, strategic restraint was reinforced once India achieved its primary goal (of securing J&K) and only when external factors (such as the threat of Chinese intervention) limited Indian choices.

So it can hardly be called a stalemate for India. I know about the China factor too, but I also believe that the world powers would not have idly watched any potential Chinese interference in the conflict.

Note also that Shastri accepted the UN Secretary General's proposal for a ceasefire on 11-12 September, even before the Sialkot campaign was well under way, i.e., before the Battle of Chawinda. If the ceasefire went through, there would have been no need for the Sialkot campaign. This was also before China moved any troops, apparently on 17 September. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean stalemate in the sense that there is nothing more the Indians or Pakistanis could have done. Both the US and China would have ensured that India could not have gone into Lahore, even if it had the wherewithal, the US, as an old ally of Pakistan, by applying unprecedented pressure, China by opening another front. The world powers would have acted in any meaningful way against the Chinese, only if the spur for the Chinese action was not further Indian advance into west Pakistan or new one into East Pakistan. Britain was upset at India for even opening the Punjab front, i.e. for extending a conflict over a disputed territory into a war between nations. After all, why did India need to open the Punjab front if it indeed had been prevailing in Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all,I would like to thank Kautilya, Fowler and Aman for the research everyone has put forth. Kudos! This is exactly what we need - a scholarly discussion :) Secondly, I would like to point, most of the research appears to indicate, that India exercised strategic restraint, even while Lahore was within reach. Now whether or not Indian forces would have could have should have had secured Lahore or not, both their objectives had been met - 1. Securing J&K and 2. Offensive inside Pakistan territory. I would argue that Indian position certainly had an upper hand having achieved objectives of securing its own areas and on offensive inside Pakistan territory - only to retreat to peacetime positions as a way to de-escalate. That unto itself is not a draw but a ceasefire and de-escalation via Tashkent accord back to peacetime positions after having secured their defensive objectives.. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear @Sdmarathe: Thanks for your generous reply. The author's point is that India's goal of "securing J&K" was met only by the terms of the cease-fire, not before it. In light of India's air-force losses, of pressure being applied by the US and the UK, and of the burgeoning Chinese threat, whose previous memory from three years before was still raw in India, the cease-fire ensured that India would get Kashmir back even if it meant returning larger, but less strategic, real estate in Punjab. The author says, "The case demonstrates political primacy over military means. It also shows how limited capabilities, international demands for a ceasefire, and the threat of intervention on the part of China played a much larger role in shaping political decisions." and later, "As far as the US was concerned, the main red line for the Chinese was Indian military engagement in East Pakistan, and potentially deeper penetration in the west in and around Lahore. It was for these reasons that Indian envoys in London, Washington and Moscow were all urged by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to accept a ceasefire proposal as fast as possible." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

PS More relevantly to current events, the author concluded with, "In his seminal study on perception and misperception in international politics, Robert Jervis begins by asking a seemingly simple question: do decision-makers’ perceptions matter? How easy or difficult, Jervis wrote, is it to distinguish between the 'world as the actor sees it' and 'the world in which policy will be carried out?' The key problem, Jervis surmised, is that 'decision-makers assimilate evidence to their pre-existing beliefs without being aware of alternate explanations.' In the contemporary Indian context, it is all-too-evident that Indian decision-makers see no difference between the world as they see it and the one in which their policies will be carried out."

Jarvis's and the author's words were brought into focus in recent events, when on February 27, 2019, Pakistan struck back, downed a plane, captured a pilot, and India has been working overtime to give positive spin to the events in the world in which its policies were carried out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lahore was not "within reach". Neither have I seen any RS indicate that India had planned to go into Lahore. Rudra Chaudhuri has accessed enough internal documents of the Indian government (but apparently none of the Pakistani government) to give us an idea of India's strategy. Note in particular,

He stated that he could no longer “live from ceasefire to ceasefire.” Furthermore, the fate of Akhnoor and potentially India’s ability to defend J&K lay in the balance.

These are defensive strategies. I have seen it mentioned that capturing territory was not important to India, but breaking Pakistan's capacity to fight. "Breaking capacity" might sound like an offensive strategy, but it has to be understood in the context of living "from ceasefire to ceasefire", i.e., seeking durable peace rather than yet another ceasefire in a cycle of conflict.

So, while the Chinese threat is certainly important in strategic calculations, India's goals were modest in comparison to the Chinese red lines. Going into Lahore or attacking East Pakistan were never on the cards. Fighting a "long war" was not on the cards either, for economic reasons. Here is one analysis that states it explicitly:

Acutely concerned about the impact of the war on the economy, Prime Minister Shastri, Finance Minister T. T. Krishnamachari and Food Minister C. Subramaniam were all in favour of agreeing to a ceasefire on the basis of the UN Security Council Resolution of 6 September. But they were strongly opposed by Defence Minister Chavan, who was not only reflecting his own views but also that of the leadership of the armed forces.

This was on 11-12 September when the UN Secretary General visited Delhi. The reason for the Army's opposition wasn't desire for a long war, but the fact that, at that point in time, the Sialkot campaign had just started. (This is what removed the threat to J&K, not the Lahore campaign.) But Shastri accepted the proposal anyway, telling the Army that Pakistan was unlikely to accept it and they would get more time. By 20 September, the Sialkot campaign achieved as much as it could. So the Army Chief supported ceasefire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Kautilya3:, for the clarification. Interesting. We certainly have enough scholarly sources. In the coming week(s) I will take a stab at summarizing them briefly and broadly in narrative form in a paragraph or two. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Kalyanaraman, The Context of the Cease-Fire Decision in the 1965 India-Pakistan War, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 21 September 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the beginning of this Misplaced Pages post it says this war was a 17-week war. Instead, it should say it was a 17-day war. 208.102.178.242 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

There have been recent edits by a blocked sock puppet. There have also been edits by Pax98, mainly regarding losses, in the infobox and a table in the body of the article for which there are concerns. Expanding the infobox with various detailed claims of losses is contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Such detail should be left to the body of the article. The infobox is already quite bloated and we should be striving to deflate rather than inflate the infobox further. There are also issues with sourcing and particularly this source, which does not appear to support some of the claims it has been cited to support and, more importantly, it does not appear to be a WP:RS.

Consequently, I have manually reverted (see here), to remove such material. I have also removed some text which cites GlobalSecurity - this being listed at WP:RSP as an unreliable source. There is no issue with adding reliably sourced material to the body of the article. However, whether such material should also be added to the infobox is another issue. We also need to be aware of the potential to create inconsistencies within the article overall. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, but why revert the Strength section??!! Pax98 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

For losses, please read strengths and losses. My comments regarding losses reported in the infobox equally apply to strengths reported in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask you just one final thing - what is more important to you - being factual or being more streamlined?? Why revert the figures back to what we know to be factually incorrect?? Pax98 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable question, that it can be simplistically reduced to an either/or proposition, because the reality is both are important and one can achieve both. I have not said that verifiable material can't be added to the body of the article though one must also remember WP:VNOT. However the guidance at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is quite clear. The infobox is not for detail or nuance and we should not be trying to write the article in the infobox. There are two key issues: the verifiability of some of the material added; and, where some of the material was added (ie to the infobox rather than the body of the article). In some cases, the info added to the infobox was not verifiable, so that was a double-whammy. We can move forward with the info you have added (and would wish to add) but keeping in mind these two issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

While that's all good and dandy, that's not what I meant at all!! You wanted to keep it brief, that's all good but why does it have to come in the expense of authenticity when you simply could have simply used the sum total value of their tank strength instead??!!

"In some cases, the info added to the infobox was not verifiable,"

-

With all due respect, can you kindly be more specific?? Which particular info you're talking about, please let me know. Pax98 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Try the source I linked. At least 200+ confirmed in infobox is not verifiable from that souce cited in table in body of article. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that we are talking about the strength section in the info box, right?? Pax98 (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, for Patons, you have replaced a verified figure with an unverified figure. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I provided not one, not two but three completely neutral sources (including one from a Pakistani military historian) that more or less back up my claim.

With all due respect, if this does not count as verified to you, then I've no idea what will. Pax98 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Re * 330-350 M47 Pattons delivered between 1955–60, there is not now nor was there before in your previous edit a citation to support the. However, there was a citation to support a different figure. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

One source mentions the figure 330 while another 347 - that's why, for the sake of transparency, I decided to put it like that - a range rather than one specific number. By the way, what's 186 times 3?? As you may see, one way or another, all three of my sources give basically the same figure of ~540-550 Pattons in Pakistani service at the beginning of the conflict. Pax98 (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It is now clearer that you intend the citations to cover both dot points. There has been a difference of understanding. The two dot-points for Pattons delivered before 1960 and after 1960 require separate citations (they are effectively different paragraphs). Please place citations that are relevant to a particular dot-point next to that particular dot-point (ie all three don't apply to both dot points). This will then be resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, will do once I get the time. Regards. Pax98 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

Adiiitya, you have reinstated flags to the infobox with this and subsequent edits. This is quite contrary to the relevant guidance at MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS, which is explained in fuller detail at MOS:MILFLAGS, particularly when it uses many sub-national flags which have no meaning defined by use in the article. Flags in the infobox must serve a useful purpose. MOS:MILFLAGS explains how they might do this. However, because there are only two belligerents in this war, they do not serve a useful purpose as defined in MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As I already stated, the flags have their meaning, and they summarize the diffence branches of the forces which take part in the war. Moreover, there are some articles in wikipedia where flagicons are approved even when there are just two belligerents. ĀDITYA 13:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• India portal selected articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in India
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in Pakistan
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2013)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2015)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2018)