Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948

RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion support and opposition received equal support by vote count, but consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by counting votes.

Considering the discussion through this lens we see that editors supporting "See Aftermath" argue, with considerable evidence, that reliable sources do not support the notion of this being a simple Indian victory, and further support this argument with the documentation for the infobox as well as WP:MILMOS, which instruct us to say "See Aftermath" if the result is nuanced or inconclusive.

In support of "Indian Victory", editors present several arguments; that sources support this being an Indian victory, that sources do not support this being a Pakistani victory, and that the Indians were generally successful in the war; if there was any "victor" in the war, then that was India, India has been treated as the victor because it had militarily advantage when the ceasefire was announced, The sources are clear that the pakistani forces failed to acheive their objectives, and the Indian army captured the vast majority of the territory in contention orior to the ceasefire.

The last two of these arguments were given little weight; they aren't evidence in favor of a clear result that MILMOS requires for the infobox. The first argument, in comparison to the argument presented by the editors who supported "See Aftermath", was insufficiently supported by evidence, and so given less weight than that argument.

Considering this, we find a rough consensus in favor of "See Aftermath". BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Noting the guidance at MOS:MIL, the template documentation and the Aftermath section of the article (version as at opening the RfC), should the result be: a) Indian victory; b) inconclusive; or, c) See Aftermath section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Notified at WP:RSN here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Notified at WP:NPOVN here. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Note I do not condone editors moving the posts of other editors (made as responses) from the comments section to the discussion section per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. However, if this is done, it should be made in a way that is totally transparent and preserve the continuity of the discussion - noting that the post was moved and where it was moved from (idealy in small text and at both places [where the post was originally placed and where it was moved to]). The moved text should note to whom the post was originally directed. Please correct any such moves accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

A reply to this note of user:Cinderella157 by user:MBlaze Lightning posted at 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) has been moved to the bottom of the discussion section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• See Aftermath (As nom) There are sources which describe the result as both an Indian victory and as a stalemate/inconclusive. The war was ended by a UN mediated ceasefire rather than being fought to a military conclusion. There is nuance as to why this might be considered an Indian victory for which the infobox is unsuited. More importantly, there is a conflict of opinion in sources as to whether this was an Indian victory or inconclusive (as indicated in the Aftermath section). In such a case, MOS:MIL and the template documentation would indicate that See Aftermath is the most appropriate course to adopt. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:MIL gives voice to the guidance in the template documentation regarding populating the result parameter. The guidance given is made in consideration of core policies: WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (including WP:WEIGHT). It is a fact that sources are cited in the article for both an Indian victory and for inconclusive/stalemate. Taking the sources at face value, the consensus of sources is divided and the prevailing WP:P&G is patently clear that we are bound to use the see Aftermath option (or omit the result from the infobox). Those that would argue an Indian victory would invoke WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and that Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. The assertion is that [all] sources reporting inconclusive/stalemate only do so as passing mentions and should therefore be discounted en masse.

For such an assertion to be substantiated, there would need to be a detailed assessment of the sources in question presented to establish the premise in each case and that such an assessment is available to be subjected to scrutiny. Where an assertion is claimed, the onus rests with those making the assertion to substantiate it. No such assessment has been presented. The assertion is unsubstantiated opinion. Furthermore, any broad generalisation is refuted by just one exception - such as Alastair Lamb (Incomplete Partition: The Genesis of the Kashmir Dispute 1947–1948, Roxford Books, 1997) as noted by Peacemaker67.

In case there is any doubt, the question posed by the RfC specifically linked to a version of the Aftermath section at the start of the RfC and the sources cited at that time. Since then additional sources have been added (see here). There are twenty odd sources listed that would support an inconclusive/stalemate result. The question to be answered is whether there is a substantive credible argument with actual evidence to discount all sources that would report an inconclusive/stalemate result? This is an incredible proposition. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• See Aftermath per nomination and the various guidelines/suggestions mentioned. Two facts are clear: some sources describe an Indian victory, and some sources describe an inconclusive result. Thus, to preserve WP:WEIGHT, see aftermath is clearly the best choice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Inconclusive; see Aftermath Had Kashmir (a Muslim-majority region) been a province of British India as opposed to a region the British had sold to a Hindu ruler a full century earlier, it would have either gone entirely to Pakistan (as had Sind) or partitioned into districts of Muslim-majority (the Kashmir valley, Gilgit, and Baltistan) going to Pakistan and non-Muslim (Ladakh and Jammu) going to India per the convention established in the Partition of India. Early in 1947, there was disquiet, and later upheaval against the Hindu ruler, in the western district of Poonch. Pathan tribesmen (of the same ethnicity as the Poonch rebels) infiltrated from Pakistan and were later backed by Pakistan army irregulars. They quickly took Gilgit and Baltistan, and a large part of the Valley. The Indian army was eventually flown in (after the ruler acceded to India rather hurriedly). The Indians did drive the infiltrators out from most of the Valley, but G-B remained with Pakistan. The Indians went to the UN (requesting a cease-fire) in part because they were worried that their unacclimatized army might lose ground in the Kashmir winter. You can read about this in Kashmir. I don't think anyone seriously calls it an Indian victory. Most people don't call it an "India-Pakistan War" either, only the "First Kashmir War," but such are the numbers of India-POV editors on Wikipedia these days that very little NPOV content on India survives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Changed vote to "See Aftermath" only. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please note that there are 17 sources, most scholarly ones, that judge a stalemate and only six old and poor quality ones that interpret an Indian victory. See my note in the Discussion section and the list in Aftermath. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See Aftermath (with a link to the Aftermath section). If sources are divided between Indian victory and inconclusive we should not put Inconclusive; see Aftermath because there is not an academic consensus on the outcome being Inconclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I understand we can't put "Inconclusive" there because some sources do indeed call it Indian victory. But can we put "Disputed: many scholars say stalemate, while others say Indian victory"? VR _talk 15:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am entirely uninterested in the opinions of editors on this matter. What matters is the consensus of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of what has been written by Indian and Pakistani authors on this topic is written from the point of view of their own side, and in some, the bias is clear. Many of the sources listed are military sources from one side or the other, and should just be deleted, along with the material they purportedly "support". However, a large number of reliably published scholars have observed that the war was at a stalemate at the time of the ceasefire on 1 January 1949 at which time both sides were exhausted and convinced they could not make significant territorial gains over the other, and neither side had won an overwhelming victory or managed to control all of Kashmir. Pakistan stopped India from capturing all of Kashmir, and India failed to do so. An example of this view include Alastair Lamb in Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990, which (quite unbelievably) is in "Further reading" when it should be a key text. However, the current footnotes 122 to 138 all support this view. Yes, there are some sources, a few of them reliable if they are taken in context, that say India won, but Wikipedia does not pick winners, we reflect what the sources say, and they are divided, despite what some partisan editors may have said on this page and elsewhere. The closer should look at the !votes carefully. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Note - The credibility of several of Alaister Lamb's claims is quite dubious, and he has been accused of ignoring facts that contradict his findings by his academic peers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If one is going to make such claims, it is always good to substantiate them. Such a criticism is not consistent with the precis of reception at Lamb's article for Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990. Regardless, Lamb is only one source out of many. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I was pointing out information that was present in the article helpfully linked by the OP themselves, so I didnt think it necessary. However, you can go through these - Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I did read the article's section on Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990 (as I indicated above). The "note" being made here paints with a broad tar brush as if it is the only colour used from the pallet.

Tinker ... notes that his findings will not be accepted by Indian authors ... Prem Shankar Jha... tried to provide a detailed critique of the contentious aspects of Lamb's treatment of the Kashmir dispute, although David Taylor points out that while providing alternative readings on some points, Jha does not manage to entirely refute Lamb. Srinath Raghavan credits Lamb with discovering that Kashmir's Instrument of Accession was most likely signed on 27 October 1947, after the Indian troops landed in Srinagar, rather than 26 October, as official Indian history maintains. However, he states that in his later work, Birth of a Tragedy, Lamb "overreached" by claiming that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir never signed the Instrument of Accession at all. He conveniently overlooked other letters where the Maharaja mentioned having signed accession.

One academic peer has observed that Lamb (in a later publication) overlooked certain letters unrelated to Lamb's assessment of the result (the issue here). Another would critique Lamb's work, though not altogether successfully. Nothing is said as to whether this critique goes to Lamb's assessment of the result. Reading the section in full indicates that Lamb's work is generally well received by his peers. Slinging mud indiscriminately in the general direction of a target is not at all helpful. There is nothing to be garnered from this, that Lamb's assessment of the result (the pertinent issue here) is significantly and specifically disputed by his peers. Regardless there are also a number of other sources that would reach a similar conclusion while some other good quality sources would reach an alternative conclusion (that this was an Indian victory). Herein lies the issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Your charecterisation is more than charitable. The critique was not that Lamb accidentally missed some letters, but that he ignored them since they were contradictory to his views (with some other criticism also, that was skipped in the ... portions of your comment, about his partisan writing). This is not the only instance where Lamb has made such far flung claims - With his other works also being questioned, in large part, due to his fairly open dislike of the Indian government that is apparant in his writings.

Leo Rose called the book a "special pleading" rather than a scholarly work, which presents the Chinese position extremely well. Lamb points out rightly that China had never ratified the Simla Convention which contained the definition of the McMahon Line but he dismisses the question of whether the British and Tibetan governments were competent to conclude the agreement. Rose also notes that Lamb seems annoyed at the fact that the authorities of independent India do not follow the British imperial line, which he terms "out of place".^[15]

Parshotam Mehra, calling the two-volume work a "herculean effort", nevertheless labels it an "outright partisan attempt at demolishing the Indian case and thereby lending countenance to, and buttressing, the Chinese claims." The historian in Alastair Lamb is "fairly sound", he says, but frequently departs from being a historian to a "factionist".^[8] Mehra's own later work, McMahon Line and After was judged by Leo Rose to be "more balanced and less advocative" than Lamb's.^[16]

There is a lot more to add to the article on Lamb itself, which glosses over many citicisms from the works it cites as praises of Lamb. This is cited to say he was a leading historian, but glosses over the text, which also states

Alongside his impressive scholarship, Lamb was an advocate of sometimes outlandish conspiracy theories (or what his friends would call hobby-horses). He was also prone to waspish asides which diminished the authority of his writing.

Lamb once told me he was ‘firmly convinced’ that Nehru and the Kashmiri nationalist leader, Sheikh Abdullah, were half-brothers. While he was more cautious in his published works, he gave some hefty nudges in that direction. “Nehru saw Sheikh Abdullah almost as his political twin,” Lamb declared in Birth of a Tragedy: Kashmir 1947. And just to rub in the insinuation, he commented that “some aspects of the Nehru-Sheikh Abdullah connection have yet to be explained satisfactorily – it may well have involved more than shared political opinions”.

Of the accession document by which the Maharaja of Kashmir belatedly signed up his princely state to India, Lamb caustically observed in Birth of a Tragedy: “There are well informed people who deny that any such document ever existed.” So we have another conspiracy theory – that Jammu and Kashmir’s last princely ruler, Hari Singh, never actually put his name to the Instrument of Accession.

Certainly, not everything that Lamb wrote was a lie (else he wouldnt have people praising his work) but it is certainly not a shining beacon of scholarship as the OP claimed. And if this is the quality of the "best" sources, indeed their numerical strength can be brushed aside. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Indian victory - Of all options, "Indian victory" is the most accurate assessment because Jammu and Kashmir was a disputed territory and India managed to gain over 67% of the territory as well as more than 70% of the population as noted by the scholars; "In the first Kashmir war, India occupied two-thirds of the disputed territory and Pakistan was clearly defeated during its first war with India."[1] We must also note that "the ceasefire came at a time when the Indian forces had the upper hand"[2]. Long term effects should be also counted; "The war for states had not only ended in Indian military victory but had given its leaders enormous self-confidence and satisfaction over a job well done. The effect of the defeat in Pakistan was no less important but was completely negative."[3] Nobody says that the war was a victory for Pakistan because Pakistan lacked advantages in comparison with India, that's why "inconclusive" makes no sense to me. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Indian victory per above. According to reliable sources, if there was any "victor" in the war, then that was India. Those who state that the war was inconclusive are mainly passing mentions and they haven't refuted the fact that India was the victor. It has been commonly held that "Pakistan has fought and lost four wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999)". [4] Wikipedia should state the same. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Indian victory. There are no two ways about describing the result of the Kashmir war or diverging perspectives in academia that some have made it out to be here (and dare I say perfunctorily)  in order to force a see aftermath result (which would be a necessary prerequisite to occlude the idea of Indian victory). The very first issue that is manifest is that the attendant sources for gainsaying the scholarly support for Indian victory result have not been brought out directly here which precludes a editorial scrutiny of them. Whatever sources that have been indirectly handwaved to (and not cited directly to weigh in favour of options c or b) in earlier discussions as being sprinkled in discussions elsewhere were when considered (vide the discussion  in the first thread), including Paul, T. V., Snedden, Sisson, Batra, Surinder Mohan, Kennedy (and one need only ctrl+f each to look over the same) did not stand up to scrutiny.) They all: a) fell into the rubric of passing mentions, and some so laconic as being a mere sentence chunk, b) touching on various aspects of the subject like ceasefire and the nature of political dispute, which is completely extraneous to the result of the military engagement. The sources have to be specifically reliable for the statement being made for them to be considered reliable, and this was conveniently given a short shrift to.

There is no divergence in academia on the results of the war as the numerous sources regarding India affirmatively on the question exemplify. It's the political dispute that has reached an impasse, and that's what the scholars observe in their brief consideration of the dispute. But that has also not precluded scholars from exploring the military successes accruing to India (which was the better of the two sides) during the course of the war. At the proclamation of the ceasefire, India stood in possession of the two-thirds of the territory of Kashmir and five-sevenths of its populace. Together with that, Pakistan had suffered 3x casualties than India. "Indian victory" is purely valid. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See Aftermath Even if the context and the quality of the sources supporting the claim of Indian victory is ignored, it is very clear that still majority of the academic scholarship states the conclusion of war as Inconclusive/stalemate. Treating both as if they have equal academic support is giving undue weight to the former. Ideally the result box should mention it as a stalemate; if it cannot be done, then it should state See Aftermath with link to the section. Ignoring these academic sources and promoting a minority POV is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. I still cannot comprehend the cause of this lame dispute, which has been running on since past half a year by now. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I find it odd that the editors pushing the POV for an Indian victory are demanding "higher quality sources" and pretending that their demand is still unfurnished, completely ignoring that 11 out of 17 have been published by University presses (Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, Michigan, Pennsylvania and others) and 16 out of 17 are in whole dealing with the Indo-Pakistani conflict and Kashmir war. That is nothing but mental gymnastics to somehow prove that they are not credible enough, with at the same time being unable to show how so.

  One just has to take a look at the sources present at the Aftermath section to verify which sources are of higher scholarly value and relevancy than the other. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indian victory. There is a cogent case that is made out for an Indian victory by scholars actually writing on the war. The preponderance of sources writing on the result (ex set 1) bear out the veracity of the proposition. The opposing sources of equal quality and quantity have not been forthcoming. None should presume to broad brush cast aspersions of partisan !voting on one set of !voters where there are legitimate rationales based on what the sources are saying and what they are not. Likewise, the insinuation that there are somehow partisan sources with nationalistic affiliations used remain unsubstantiated by the original posters. Indeed, it's this kind of unsubstantiated generalizations that do not impress or help the discussion. No one has quite yet demonstrated that there is indeed a conflict in the sources on the result to adopt a see aftermath. Of the sources being alluded to, editors in the discussion below bring out that one set is passing mention, and the other mischaracterized as supporting a position they do not even comment on. And the only rebuttal or lack of it forthcoming is a personal remark on editors that they are not neutral enough to dissect their sources. This suggestion of a scholarly clash on the result is thus neither borne out nor substantiated. Editors' opinions indeed hold no sway in Wikipedia discussions and all consensus must be reached on the basis of observations occuring in reliable sources. This is truism. But instead of writing truism, it would be persuasive of posters to actually post the sources that could establish the conflict in sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Resonse by Fowler&fowler moved to discussion section by Raymond3023. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Indian victory - India has been treated as the victor because it had militarily advantage when the ceasefire was announced and Pakistan accepted the ceasefire or else they would have lost more. A Pakistani journal, from Pakistani Army itself, describes that very well by noting: "The Indians had also been successful in effecting a link up with Leh, headquarter of Ladakh Tehsil. These two advances in Novembere - December 1948 caused the loss of huge areas of liberated territory in Poonch sector as well as Northern Areas. The loss in terms of public and army morale was, however, incalculable . There was every danger of another exodus of refugees of "at least five lakhs of people" from Poonch area alone . Sardar Ibrahim, in his book, Kashmir Saga , says: Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposition, if we had to agree to a ceasefire, we should have done it a little earlier. At the time of this agreement, so far as the provinces of Jammu and Kashmir were concerned , we had lost most of the territory in a very brief period. If we had not agreed to the ceasefire , we probably would have lost the rest of Poonch, Mirpur and Muzaffarabad ... If we had lost every inch of territory on this side of Kashmir our bargaining position would have been reduced to nil. I can say with certainty that conditions were so dangerously unfavourable, that it was quite possible that we might have lost whole of the territory." This, I think, adequately explains the true military position and Liaquat Ali Khan's consequent consent to agree to ceasefire."[5] Given all that, there is no issue with stating "Indian victory". ❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 05:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• See Aftermath (Inconclusive/Stalemate) Princely state of Kashmir on paper acceded to India regardless of ground situation and it being a Muslim-majority however India failed to secure the whole territory which it claimed as theirs and a large part of it went to Pakistan and is still held by it as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. In no way it can be called an Indian victory! at all and the fact that India was the one to approach UN for ceasefire though victors usually don't. Academic sources need to be evaluated on the basis of their weightage and there are more sources which call it Inconclusive/Stalemate and should be mentioned accordingly. War Wounded (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Indian victory: Per MBlaze Lightning and Dhawangupta. Wikipedia must adhere to the scholarly consensus on this subject, which favors an Indian victory. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Indian Victory - The sources are clear that the pakistani forces failed to acheive their objectives, and the Indian army captured the vast majority of the territory in contention orior to the ceasefire. If necessary, the nuances can be explained in the "Aftermath" section. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• See Aftermath/ Alternative: No military conclusion, essentially per Peacemaker67 and per Nom. My impression is that many of those favouring an Indian victory kind of seem to stray into the WP:SYNTH part of Wikipedia:No original research. Lectonar (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Indian victory - No source says that the war was a Pakistani victory, but there are enough academic sources to say "Indian victory". There are some sources that say 1948 Arab–Israeli War was a "stalemate" but it has been mentioned as Israeli victory on Wikipedia. This war should be only concluded as Indian victory on infobox. Azuredivay (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Indian victory - If there are contemporary academic/scholary sources assessing the result of the conflict as an Indian victory, or as a Pakistani failure, or a Pakistani defeat, then it should be noted as an Indian victory. EkoGraf (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• See Aftermath/ Inconclusive/No Military Conclusion per Peacemaker67 and Lectonar, the majority of academic sources characterize the outcome as inconclusive or a stalemate. The reliability of sources supporting an Indian victory is in dispute. This situation is comparable to conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq and the Korean War, where similar sources favor one party's victory. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• See Aftermath/Inconclusive We don’t present disputed viewpoints as facts for a simple reason. The notion of victory is WP:FRINGE at best, as it departs from the mainstream and prevailing view. For decades, we’ve had scholarly literature on the objectives of the war and for years, we’ve had sources present in the article attesting to the factual outcome of the war. Nothing concrete has emerged in that time to suggest a change in history. Mar4d (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Inconclusive or See Aftermath - per the arguments and the references provided by F&F above. Bryan Fearless (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC) — Bryan Fearless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock blocked
• Indian victory. This is quite clearly the view predominant in most contemporary scholarly sources focusing on the Kashmir war. Refer for example to India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad, The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004 by the eminent authority on Kashmir Praveen Swami (2006). Swami is unequivocal in writing that the war was a debacle for Pakistan[6]; and that its establishemnet drew its salutary lessons from the military defeats of the 1947 and 65 wars.[7] When such categorical commentary is presented by scholars, there does not remain grist for us to dither? Additionally, the opposing arguments have been discursive and bereft of substantiations. They say that aspect of the result is foreclosed in the event of a ceasefire, which is preposterous. Then they make a case of dispute in sources using passing mentions, which is essentially drawing a false equivalence by juxtaposing reliable sources with those that aren't reliable for this subject. Then they bring out the nationality of the handful(!?) of the scholars to discount all of the sources, which is such a non-serious, broad-brush and parochial utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking basis in policy. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
• Inconclusive - See Aftermath / No military conclusion: Most of the sources point towards a stalemate/inconclusive result. It would be a gross oversimplification to give weight to a minority viewpoint in academic scholarship that are mostly one liner/non academic partisan sources, and the WP:FRINGE issues of this approach should be obvious. Although in the interest of consensus among editors and MOS:MIL policy compliance as noted by nom, just See Aftermath would also be appropriate.

Lastly, the repetitive arguments presented above so far for "Indian victory" - to give undue weight to the select few fringe sources in infobox - remain thoroughly unconvincing and refuted in the discussion section below. They also ignore "Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded". [8] Having a few sources state an upper hand in some way during the war by either India or Pakistan doesn't translate to a "victory/success" for any party, this just demonstrates why the war is generally perceived as a stalemate by independent sources.Codenamewolf (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indian victory. Scholarly opinion is not divided into opposing viewpoints on this question. Most scholars view this favorably. The chief argument here is that the academic consensus weighs in favor of the idea of Indian victory, if we discount the passing mentions (and these sources have been scrutinized). The arguments against it are mostly dubious and vacillate between an inconclusive, stalemate and a see aftermath, and some of the !votes above juxtapose all these expressions together, betraying a lack of clarity in thoughts and basis in sources. As a participant in the discussions, I considered most of the sources furnished for both of the positions and the attendant arguments. Most scholarly accounts of the war, detailed enough in their consideration of the subject, tended to acknowledge, in one way or another, India's relative successes in accomplishing the prewar objectives it had set out to accomplish, in marked contrast with Pakistan's failures in doing so. Pakistan did not have any material gain accruing to it during the course of engagement with the Indian forces. It retained a third of the erstwhile territory of Kashmir, but which its lashkars had already wrung from the state forces of maharaja (before he acceded it to India, paving the way for the latter's participation in the war) and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir, much less the crowning objective of Srinagar, which it warred over.[9] India entered much later into the war theatre, and not just arrested the Pakistani advance, but also acquired control over the majority of Kashmir (hosting 72% of its population) which included the valley that it reclaimed.
  Some of the see aftermath proponents have in discussions pointed to a number of passing mentions stacked up elsewhere to argue that these sources established a divergence of opinions amongst scholars on the war result. Dhawangupta in their comment above refers to an analysis of some of these sources, and folks have scrutinized more of these sources elsewhere on the page. On policy grounds alone, this argument would be discounted, for a source touching on a subject incidentally is by definition inadmissible. Even then, there are important nuances in the use of expressions such as "stalemate", "deadlock", et al, occurring in some of these sources, which they do in a certain context. These then have been misrepresented out of that context by their posters that intertwined it to the war result. The first Kashmir war was fought over roughly one and a half year from October 1947 to January 1949, and most of these passing mentions of stalemate occur in the context of military deadlock that characterized the situation of the beginning of the winter of 1947. For instance, Jayanta Kumar Ray, one of their sources is a good case in point. With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces. On 1 January 1948 , India referred the matter to the Security Council under Article 35 of the Charter , urging that august institution to call upon Pakistan to refrain from interfering in Kashmir by aiding and abetting the tribal invaders[10], Ray wrote on the situation of lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended (the year being 1947) in her brief consideration of the war. This was misrepresented as Ray's support for the war result being a stalemate! Sumit Ganguly, in his Conflict Unending India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947, tells us that after the relative quiet of winter was the Indian spring offensive of 1948 that accrued it important territorial gains. In December 1947, logistical difficulties dealt the Indian forces an important military setback. The principal problem that the Indian forces encountered was a lack of supplies and of adequate high - altitude warfare equipment...Taking advantage of the Indian lapse , the ' Azad Kashmir ' ( literally , ' free Kashmir ' ) forces compelled the Indians to retreat . . In the spring of 1948 , the Indians launched a counter - offensive that led to more direct Pakistani involvement in the war .  Later in the year , regular Pakistani army units entered the fray as the Indian army made important territorial gains .[11] Another one of their own sources, Peter R. Lavoy, mentions in passing, in his book on Kargil, that the important mountainous towns of Dras, Kargil and the Zozila Pass fell in Indian hands only by December 1948.
  Ganguly also observes on the false optimism of Pakistan's establishment that convinced it to war with India over Kashmir, Given the disarray of Pakistan's social , organizational , political , and military structures in the wake of Partition, 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.[12] Subir Bhaumik, scholar, writes, "The general course of the first Kashmir war went against Pakistani expectations . Pakistan could not bring Kashmir within its fold - neither could it , at that point of time , win the loyalty of the Kashmiri Muslims in the Valley . The Pakistani effort lacked centralized operational planning , proper intelligence and , above all , an accurate assessment of the Indian mindset".[13] Pradeep Barua, in his critique of the performances of the respective armies, writes, "The campaign in Jammu and Kashmir, the second longest military campaign waged by the Indian army to date, is also one of its most successful. The army's performance reflected the high state of combat efficiency achieved during the Second World War. More importantly, the Indian army's success vindicated the reforms carried out in the interwar British-Indian army. After initially experiencing shock at the strength and organization of the Pakistani- sponsored raiders, the general staff did not panic and flood Kashmir with troops. Instead, it carefully noted the logistical difficulties. As a result, when the Indian counteroffensive eventually opened in early 1948, it was sustained with minor hitches right up until the cease-fire. Despite numerical superi- ority and the advantage of operating close to its supply bases, the Pakistani army failed to make any substantial headway. The inadequacies that char- acterized most Pakistani operations can be traced to their depleted officer corps.[14] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

References

• Inconclusive - See Aftermath/ See Aftermath or Omit result parameter altogether: The term "inconclusive/stalemate" has widespread use in reliable sources to describe the result of this war. As the ultimate objective of India/Pakistan was retaking the whole land of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, which both failed to materialize. If a few sources diverge from this prevailing viewpoint, it can be discussed in the See Aftermath section.

The infobox documentation for {{Infobox military conflict}} clearly states: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." This also forms part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX: "The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"." _Noor Gee_ʞlɐʇ 10:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indian victory - As already explained, there is not a single source that support Pakistani victory, thus Indian victory is not disputed at all. Furthermore, contrary to some unsubstantiated claims here,India had no motive to capture whole Kashmir.[15] Capitals00 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Inconclusive/See Aftermath alternative Pakistani victory: India gained whole of Kashmir by accession document not by war, Pakistan gained 1/3 of Kashmir as a direct result of war, so it qualifies as Pakistani victory but I will settle for Inconclusive/See Aftermath as I see Pakistani victory is not an option in this RFC. Many historians believed Pakistan would have gained whole of Kashmir if Messervy/Darcey would have obeyed Jinnah in time to send regular Pakistani forces into the war. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Abhishek0831996, In your second source you are wrong in suggesting that somehow having upper hand translates into an Indian victory. Of coarse Indian military had advantage as their opponents were un-trained tribal militia. But there is no room for treating these two terms as synonymous. The rest of the two sources are not dealing with the first Kashmir war or even, the Kashmir conflict. We cannot take their claim at face value when majority of other sources suggest otherwise.

  Also, you have conveniently avoided addressing the sources which actually deal with Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani wars and state this war to be a stalemate. Sumit Ganguly, Lavoy, Surinder Mohan and Ankit, Rakesh, who actually provide a detailed account of war and Kashmir conflict, consider it a military stalemate. Fair, C. Christine, Gardner, Cheri, Cheema & Cohen, Sprague, Jayanta Kumar Ray and Sisson & Rose are also equally reliable for the South Asian military history, if not more, than Wilcox or Arshad Ali.

  If anything, these academic sources prove that there is no sort of academic consensus for Indian victory which you are trying to portray. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  No I never said that "upper hand" means victory. I only stated that source to mention how India had advantage at the time of the ceasefire. If I were to find passing mentions like your sources then you will easily get outnumbered.

  It has been already discussed that while a good number of academic sources say it was an Indian victory, nobody appears to be rejecting this fact with proper analysis. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's pretty obvious that calling of result by academic references as inconclusive or stalemate is outright rejection of "this fact" of the supposed Indian victory. So, I'm not sure how can you draw the conclusion that nobody appears to be rejecting this fact with proper analysis. Also explain how these sources are just passing remarks while the sources supporting your claim aren't. If anything, most of these sources actually state so after in-depth study of war, unlike the ones stating it to be a win for Indian military, which are more in nature as passing mentions. If you can find better sources specialising in the Kashmir conflict for your claim, you should do so.

  Sutyarashi (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not. Passing mentions are not proper analysis. I have already evaluated your sources in the original discussion and flagged my concerns with your use of them. The fact you elect to simply rehash them without critically engaging with them doesn't help the discussion. Take for instance what Jayanta Kumar Ray has observed and how you are misrepresenting him as offering support for your contention when he is simply considering different things in a different context. With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply line, the military situation reached a stalemate; especially because regular Pakistani troops were also joining the Azad Kashmir forces, he writes before transitioning to the political nature of the dispute and the UN handling of it. Ray does not observe on the war result, but on the lack of military progress by either side by the time winter descended. Which isn't true completely either, as Peter R. Lavoy, whom you cited too, tells us in his book on Kargil that Dras, Kargil and the Zozila Pass only fell in Indian hands by December 1948. But that is a different matter and besides the point. Scholars critiquing the result of the military engagement would cater for aspects of disproportionate territorial expansion accruing to India in consequence of the war. The point is clear that you don't quite have or shown the scholarly support for your contention as you otherwise believe. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  In your this analysis of the source, you have discussed only J. K Ray. Even in it, you are completely ignoring that he had been discussing the war for past several pages. Of coarse, the conclusion of the war would be stated only at the end. The lack of military progress, by very dictionary definition, is a stalemate, not a victory. You are wrong in concluding that somehow he's simply considering different things in a different context. If he transitioned to the UN handling of the war afterwards, that does not discredit him either. Indeed, India had itself brought the issue to the UN. I'm not sure how you are going to reject his conclusion on such flimsy grounds. Also, I would be rather glad if you can spend some of your precious time, just like I have been doing, to prove how all of these sources provide only a passing remark, and on what basis they should be considered more reliable than the ones furnished by editors supporting Indian POV, like this, this, this or this, when they don't are not even related to the topic under discussion or even devote half a page for war?

  Or alternatively, you can stop pretending that the mainstream academic view is Indian triumph, when it is very clearly not the case. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have to recapitulate my observations on your sources interminably just because you don't get it. Jayanta Kumar Ray's is not an observation on the result of the war as the context makes it clear. There is the similar case of misrepresentation with your use of Ganguly who doesn't aver in the context of the war result. None of your other passing mention sources have stuck hitherto so it's really not on me if you are unable to convince us by regurgitating the same argument again and again. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, in that case, you should leave the matter to decide what these sources mean by calling the war of 1947 – 1948 as inconclusive or stalemate to some uninvolved editors. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why don't you "find the passing mentions," and list them here, @Abhishek0831996: I don't mean back-alley publishers in the vicinity of Ansari Road, Old Delhi, but high-quality internationally-recognized scholarly publishers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• To all RfC participants: There were 14 sources in the "Aftermath" section that judged the war to have ended in a stalemate and only six old and poor quality ones that discerned an Indian victory. As many sources in the first group were stacked under one index at the end, that lop-sided contrast was not apparent to a reader. I have now unstacked the list and added three more in the "inconclusive" group, making 17 in all. Please do not stack it again until the conclusion of the RfC, unsightly though it might appear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  PS I bet I can easily bump up the "inconclusives" to 20 or even 25; this is that lop-sided. I'm surprised that the valuable time of competent WPians is being wasted by India-POV-pushers who had dickered with the original "inconclusive" in the first place. May I also request that the sentence "Numerous analysts state India emerged victorious as it successfully gained the majority of the contested territory." (sublimely nonsensensical) be removed at once from the lead paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Like I said there are 17 high quality scholarly sources that have judged the First Kashmir War to have ended in a stalemate or inconclusively. There are six poor quality, and also old, sources that describe the result to be an Indian victory. I have no idea what you are talking about. Vague generalities can get you only so far. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Evidently, much more than "6 sources" have been presented for "Indian victory". Nobody is measuring "who has got more sources". Now if you reallly believe that passing mentions or the sources that put minor focus on this war should be counted then it would be very easy to find dozens more sources (just like most of those "17 sources") for saying Indian victory in the war.[16][17][18] Its not difficult to find them.Ratnahastin (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You really need to explain how these sources are just passing remarks, when they devoted dozen of pages to the first Kashmir War? Snedden's and Ganguly's books actually entirely revolve around the Kashmir conflict. They analyse it in as much detail as possible. Continuous harping by you or other editors is of no value when you can't defend these claims.

Now, coming the sources you presented, Your first source is not reliable in the South Asian context. It discusses US foreign policy, and the statement (Pakistan lost all of its war) is of no value in this regard. Your second source, The Global Rise of Asian Transformation suffers from the same issue. It was written by an economist, not a war analyst. As for your third source, I mean really? You seriously think that some aeronautics related journal which allows only a snippet view is as much reliable as the WP:RS University presses published sources? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really has an obligation on them to WP:SATISFY you on your already refuted contentions and when you don't bat an eye when such "explanations" are made. And they have been restated a fair number of times. Ganguly, who like the rest of the of sources you have misrepresented, doesn't say the war ended in a stalemate. He uses the expression in quite a different context as Jayanta Kumar Ray that military deadlock in January 1948 occasioned the Indian PM to refer the dispute to the UN. Fighting didn't surcease in the early 1948. Hell, it raged on even as the UN considered the issue. Kargil, Dras, Zozila fell to India as late as December 1948. Ganguly concludes himself, After a period of further negotiations and continued fighting during the autumn , a cease - fire finally went into effect on January 1 , 1949. And this is really a short adumbration he's lifted entirely verbatim from Devin T. Hagerty's South Asia in World Politics[19] MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but the fact is that none of you have actually refuted those sources on firm basis. None of these call the war victory for India. None of the source I have misrepresented, no matter how much you disagree with what they state. And I would prefer some neutral party instead of you to deduce what they might mean by calling the war as inconclusive or stalemate.

On the other hand, none of you tried to answer my objections over the sources for an Indian victory. If you are not going to show how they are WP:RS or how sources for stalemate are just a bunch of passing mentions with no value to be cited, you can't just randomly apply WP:SATISFY on me. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I don't have to be a "neutral party" in your perception either to offer my evaluation of your sources. Comment on content, not on the contributor, as you should know by now having invoked WP:PERSONAL quite a fair number of times on this page itself for others. I see fair number of rejoinders on your charge on some of the sources you flag for issues and you actually have had no rebuttals to them. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi:, I recommend that you not respond to the Thesaurus-driven English of MBlaze Lightning and others that is essentially without content unless some kind of lame parody is their goal. After this RfC has ended, you should take all of them to AN for disruption and ask that they be topic banned from South Asia-related topics broadly construed. Engaging them now will only put off the non-involved editors who might be thinking of weighing in. You should vote yourself and explain your vote and then resist the temptation to engage these disruptive editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That's one of the very perfect ways to get WP:BOOMERANG. You should frown upon your WP:BATTLE ground mentality. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you try. I've never in 17 years on WP been the object of a boomerang. Keep writing Thesaurus-driven English ("you should frown upon ...") and you'll hasten your end on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: Please also keep WP:Civil POV pushing in mind. This seems to be the latest tack of India-POV editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: Please list all the "passing mentions" of an Indian victory here so we can test the hypothesis that there are "dozens more" of them. Please note that need to have internationally recognized scholarly publishers. I am serious. Very serious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Response to Raymond3023 moved from comment section. Moved by Raymond3023. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  You have edited nothing related to Kashmir or India-Pakistan wars and you write long-winded turgid prose about everything but WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, or WP:TERTIARY. So why does you vote carry any weight in this RfC? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  Here, @Raymond3023:, are the eight sources that mention an Indian victory: [137] A. Ali, "Pakistan's National Security Approach and Post-Cold War Security," 2021; [27] Wilcox, "Pakistan-The Consolidation of a Nation," 1963; [140] New Zealand Defense Quarterly, 1999; [141] Brozek, "War Bellies: The Critical Relationship Between Resolve and Domestic Audiences," University of Wisconsin-Madison, Unpublished PhD Dissertation (Isn't it shameful that it is left to me to describe this correctly, and not give it a bogus ISBN?); [142] Hoontrakul, "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics, 2014; [143] Brower, "The World in the Twentieth Century," 1988; [143] Kaplan, "Nations and Nationalism," 2008; [144] Hughes, "My Enemy's Enemy: Proxy Warfare in International Politics," 2012.

  Please tell us how many here are "scholars actually writing about the war." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have significantly discussed Indo-Pakistani War of 1971,[20] 2016 Indian Line of Control strike,[21] and more related subjects. If you cannot assume good faith then at least you need to stop being wholly deceptive.

You must read WP:BLUD and stop badgering everyone who is commenting against your POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

They are both talk pages. You've made 2 talk page edits in one and six in another. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure they have jumped into RfC just to simply regurgitate what other editors sharing their POV have stated before, without even checking these supposedly high quality sources, as did another editor with no prior history at this discussion and a now indeffed troll.

And I doubt that they can ever prove that how these sources are relevant or even WP:RS. I rebutted these before,[22] And even during my replies above. Have been still waiting for them to answer the objections. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi you are the one rehashing and regurgitating your trope of "high quality sources" without any critical engagement with the said sources of yours, which have been scrutinized and found to be passing mentions or worse misrepresentations by three editors in this very thread. I am yet to see you say anything other than "I would prefer some neutral party instead of you to deduce what they might mean by calling the war as inconclusive or stalemate", which to me was flat-out demeaning. The very purport of an RfC is to solicit opinions of uninvolved editors, and if such participation irks you, you perhaps need to take a break from this page and introspect. I happened to be the first responder to the attempted sabotage by the trolling sock[23] and also the guy to report him to AIV[24]. @Ratnahastin was the person to correctly identify his sock lineage at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Observer1989 which ultimately incurred him an indef. Your insinuations of guilt by association thus betray a complete absence of AGF and thoroughly disagreeable. Weigh your words before you write stuff about your fellow Wikipedians and refrain from inneundos. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning, have you been "critically evaluating" the sources being presented for the POV for Indian victory too? If not, then sorry, you are not a neutral party. That is definitely not to de-mean you as you are saying; I used it in the meaning of uninvolved/third party. (As I did above).

All of the sources for stalemate have been published by reputable publishers and authors. 16 out of 17 entirely deal with the Kashmir conflict and South Asia. Compare this with the kind of the sources supporting the notion of Indian victory; the contrast will be apparent on you. If you still think some of them have been misrepresented, feel free to remove them. But at the same time please evaluate the other sources per the same standard, and get them removed too. They are not passing mentions any more than the ones for the other POV.

Moreover, I have been avoiding discussion here, because it is very clear that one side wants to ignore there exist academic sources calling the war inconclusive. It is only that the editor essentially repeated same kind of argument (The opposing sources of equal quality and quantity have not been forthcoming. ) which has been repeatedly rebutted, and which I found necessary to be pointed out.

Also, I would be very happy if the three editors in this very thread can answer my objections over the sources they are presenting, because none of them have done so. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong in casting aspersions of lack of neutrality on me in lieu of rebutting the points on policy grounds which is actually what matters in a discussion. Your insubstantial charges of the other side's sources being as facile as yours has been disproven numerous times as diffs like this demonstrate. While you have had no rebuttals to those, you've taken to rehashing the same points in the hope that some of it beckons to the uninitiated. Your contention then that there are somehow two wrongs that make a right is a fallacious one with no merit to it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Which reliable sources? Please examine my reply to Raymond3023 below. Would you like me to have your sources put under scrutiny at WP:RS/N? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• The reply below (by user:MBlaze Lightning) to a note of user:Cinderella157 (posted at 13:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)) at the top of the RfC has been moved below by the logic advocated in that reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I think the bigger question here is why admit of back-and-forths in the thread that's earmarked for !voting when there is an accompanying discussion thread to ensure a continuity of the discussion. The way you have structured this RfC by earmarking separate threads for both !voting and discussion does create a common-sense expectation that the participants should broach and discuss their points in the thread earmarked for it. The back-and forths in the !voting would have the unenviable effect of encouraging badgering and derailing from the RfC itself which is not what we want when we are soliciting outside opinions. Having said that, I do agree on the need to ensure transparency and scrupulousness in handling moves of other users' responses and your suggestion is apt in this regard. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning: If you do not rewrite this in the kind of English you use in your content contributions, e.g. Vikram Batra, I will soon pose both lexical and syntactical queries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also note that I have replied to the reply. Therefore you cannot change it above. Please rewrite it below if you choose to. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Raymond3023, you would state Likewise, the insinuation that there are somehow partisan sources with nationalistic affiliations used remain unsubstantiated by the original posters. I am the original poster of this RfC. Please state where I have made such an insinuation herein or redact the statement as inaccurate. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• It was not about you but some other "original posters" (plural) who are having such views about the sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Since when did The Pakistan Defence Review, 1990, become a scholarly publication? And since when did a WP:PRIMARY SOURCE (Sardar Ibrahim's memoirs) become acceptable just because it has been quoted in a secondary source?. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere I have claimed anything like that. I had only provided accounts of very involved entities and a Pakistani defence journal to make it clear that whatever I am stating is a established fact accepted by all sides of and outside the dispute.--❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 06:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

How would you like, @Pravega:, to take your sources to WP:RS/N and let them decide their worth? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• For context on the greater share of sources used for an inconclusive/stalemate result, one may refer to the threaded discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#Indian_victory? where folks considered the said sources and found them mostly to be referring to the war topic in passing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  No one is interested in raking up old arguments. Here's an open challenge for you @MBlaze Lightning: As the First Kashmir War was fought 75 years ago, it has made it into books. Why don't you list all the books that mention the Indian victory in passing and let us be the judge? They have to be scholarly though and be listed here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Fowler&fowler Being scholarly or published by a reputed publisher is just one of the criteria for identifying reliable sources. It alone doesn't render a source reliable for something. There are other factors that assume greater significance and consideration. Indeed, what may be reliable for its principal topics need not necessarily be reliable for facts it refers to in passing. And that's enshrined in the policy, which is categorical in this regard and leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. Sources that mention the war in passing provide no underlying detail or context about it and cannot thus be drawn on for insights on the war result. I'll just leave you here with an example that exemplifies why passing mentions, even from scholarly publications, can show an erroneous understanding of just about anything that deviates from their principal topics. At a similar RfC at Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_3#Survey_(What_was_the_outcome_of_the_Battle_of_Chawinda?) that sought editors' inputs on the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda, similar passing mentions were brought out as saying Pakistan won the battle of Chawinda. One amongst the sources cited for it was Spencer C. Tucker, an eminent historian on military histories, who merely recycled an old correspondent's report from the wartime that said Pakistan is the victor in the battle. (written in the present tense). Here's what Tucker in another edition and in his own words observed about this battle, On September 6, however, India sent some 900,000 men across the border into Pakistan. Superior numbers soon told. In one of the largest tank battles in history, the Indians defeated the Pakistanis at Chawinda (September 14– 19) and reached Lahore, claiming to have destroyed 300 Pakistani tanks in the process. An erronerous observation even for the detractors of Pakistani victory in the battle. So instead of repeatedly badgering others to engage in the same pointless exercise as you, you can come clean on your rationale for going against the dictates of the policy which would perhaps induce understanding in others about the hitherto unclear merits of your contention. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please list all your sources, those with an in-depth treatment and those with passing mentions, and let us be the judge, without your commentary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: @MBlaze Lightning: Can you write your comments in clean comprehensible English? If you don't I'll infer that you and your cohorts here are using an obsolete, Thesaurus-driven style as a kind of private joke. In other words, you are not only engaged in obfuscation but are being disruptive. I have noted above that you have not used this stilted style in your main content contribution, Vikram Batra. I have called you out on this before on some other pages; Talk:Narendra Modi was one, I think. Pinging some administrators @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Your demand is very strange. There is no issue in having a rich vocabulary and distinct but easily understandable writing style. However, you are clearly engaging in WP:CANVASSING and WP:BLUDGEON.--❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 05:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was rich. I said it is archaic and obsolete, and often riddled with malapropisms. Please don't play Wikilawyer here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm wise to WP:Civil POV pushing Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• For the closer I note that in the "votes" above, there are claims that the academic consensus favours "Indian victory". This is clear misrepresentation and not based on the facts, as has been demonstrated above by several editors. The quality and number of the reliable "uninvolved" (ie not Pakistani or Indian) sources that support a nuanced outcome of a stalemate leading to a ceasefire far outweigh largely "involved" sources that state it was an Indian victory. There are also a few sources that are mere "passing mentions" by sources that are being used to support "Indian victory" that do not demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge of the conflict. I usually work in an area where there is a lot of civil and uncivil POV pushing (Yugoslavia in WWII), and this smells a lot like the former. Good luck with the close. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67's appeal to authority that their experience of working elsewhere allows them to cast aspersions on editors working here is outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour and an attempt to colour the perception of the otherwise uninvolved closer when they're failing to substantiate their claims or engage with others over what they rehash. Can Peacemaker67 point us to a single "involved" sources, much less "largely", that has been cited to support contentions about war results, for it is looks nothing but a trumped-up red herring that they do not substantiate. No one here has used accounts of involved sources for either of the aspects but scholars that have thoroughly critiqued the war (in the case of Indian victory). The fact thay Indian victory sources are not passing mentions is the reason why there is the argument in the first place for an academic consensus for the position. On the contrary, every single source for a "stalemate" that has been provided is a passing mention or a passing mention with editorial misrepresentation. Peacemaker67 himself relies on Alastair Lamb in his comment despite this source is not a reliable source (see reviews) for India-Pakistan conflict. Peacemaker67's cursory remarks betray a sense of prejudice but the closer should not attach significance to it as they are baseless to boot. Regards, Azuredivay (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who claims that Lamb is a fringe source on Kashmir should be ignored by the closer. The non-Indian reviews at the link describe Lamb's work in glowing terms, as do the wider reviews not mentioned there. The above personal attack points to the prejudice of the editor responsible. The level of POV pushing on this talk page is going to end up at ArbCom shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Not just this page, but some others also. If you take them to WP:AN or somesuch, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"non-Indian reviews at the link describe Lamb's work in glowing terms, as do the wider reviews not mentioned there" and it does not matter what is the race/ethnicity of the review. What matters is that Lamb claimed made a number of shocking claims such as no accession of Jammu and Kashmir was ever signed,[25] and these views are clearly fringe views not supported by any scholarly sources. Azuredivay (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Indian Ministry of Defence produced an official history of the war, which was completed in 1969, but not published until 1987. The official history does not claim that the war was an Indian victory, it says that the war ended in a cease fire. Pages 372–375 discuss the issue of an Indian victory. Page 372 says There is a feeling among some Service officers, as well as a section of the civilian population, that India should not have accepted the Cease Fire or any Cease Fire Line, and should have pressed on to liberate the rest of the territories of J & K State. It is argued that the liberation of the remaining territories of J & K was only a matter of a few weeks, and the political decision to have a Cease Fire robbed the Indian Army and the Royal Indian Air Force of a quick and decisive victory in J & K. These opinions are widespread enough to demand notice, and some senior officers who took part in these operations have also urged a discussion of this matter in this detailed history of the operations in J & K. The conclusion on page 375 was: The enemy could not be defeated decisively by local action within the boundaries of J & K. For decive victory, it was necessary to bring Pakistan to battle on the broad plains of the Punjab itself; the battle of J & K, in the last analysis, had to be fought and won at Lahore and Sialkot, as events brought home in 1965. So, if the whole of J & K had to be liberated from the enemy, a general war against Pakistan was necessary. ... rightly or wrongly, the government did not decide to have a general war with Pakistan.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty conclusive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The problem with official histories, which have not been peer-reviewed, is that had the Pakistani history judged an Indian victory, and our interlocutors used it to claim game, set, and match, we would (rightly) have said, "It is not a reliable secondary source." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The above quote provided by Toddy1 is actually about Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, not this 1947-1948 war. Azuredivay (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Azuredivay's comment is not true. He/she should read the official history, History of Operations in Jammu & Kashmir 1947-48. I gave the page references.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, of course it was peer reviewed before publication (just like the many volumes of British and American official histories of both World Wars were peer reviewed). It is worth contrasting the official history of the 1947-48 war, with the official history of the Indian invasion of neighbouring Hyderabad in the 1948, Operation Polo - The Police Action Against Hyderabad 1948; page 119 is particularly splendid, comparing the rate of advance of the Indian Army in Hyderabad with that of the 1940s German Army in France, the Soviet Union, and Africa, and the Allied armies after El Alamein. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If they are peer-reviewed, it is by other government officials in India's defence department, not independent scholars as they are in a journal or scholarly press publication. That is why they are considered primary sources, more in the nature of official archives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Best sources says The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. That is precisely the process official histories get in countries such as Britain, the United States, and India.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No they haven't not been reviewed in the standard journals of the subject of interest. You are welcome to ask at WP:RS/N Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• EkoGraf, and if there are contemporary academic/scholarly sources also assessing the result of the conflict as inconclusive or a stalemate, how do/should we deal with these? Do we just ignore them like they don't exist? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• Georgethedragonslayer, Then they make a case of dispute in sources using passing mentions, which is essentially drawing a false equivalence by juxtaposing reliable sources with those that aren't reliable for this subject. Then they bring out the nationality of the handful(!?) of the scholars to discount all of the sources, which is such a non-serious, broad-brush and parochial utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking basis in policy. No body has denied that there are some good quality sources that would assert that this is an Indian victory. The issue is that there are also good quality sources asserting that the result was a stalemate or inconclusive. To assert that all of these sources are only making passing mentions is a broad-brush utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking substantiation. Repeating it over and over does not make it true. Unsubstantiated assertion is no substitute for evidence. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Its not a broad-brush utterance that is best consigned to the trash bin as lacking substantiation if its mostly true. Out of the many sources claimed to support stalemate, many are poor quality (like Lamb) or are passing mentions (Ankit, Rakesh; Mohan; Gardener; Sisson and Rose; Jayant Kumar Ray; Ganguly; Lavoy and Sprague are all either one liners/one paragraphs with many taken from books only tangentially related to the topic, and these are 8 sources out of the 10 that have been actually provided. One other is inaccessible, and Fair, while slightly more detailed, is still not as comprehensive as the sources provided for "Indian victory"). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  There are 20 of some of the highest quality sources on Kashmir (many of which I have collected) that judge the war to have ended in a stalemate. That it was a stalemate was further evident in the motivations offered for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by right-wing Hindu nationalist assassin Nathuram Godse. Gandhi's last fast (or hunger strike) in January 1948, said Godse, was the act of a traitor. The fast in fact, i.e. from Gandhi's viewpoint, had the goal of pressuring the Government of India (especially its determinedly anti-Pakistan and occasionally anti-Muslim deputy prime minister Sardar Patel) to part with the cash assets that India owed to Pakistan, legally and morally, by the terms set down in the Partition of India. Patel had been holding back the money for he feared that it would give Pakistan the resources for purchasing arms. Only a stalemate and not a defeat could have been turned around by a simple influx of cash. For a defeat results in a breakdown of order, both social and military. By the time the cash was paid, the matter had been taken to the UN.

  As for the sources that judge a military victory, please take them to WP:RS/N and ask user:SamuelRiv there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• As there is a broad assertion that all of the sources for a result of stalemate/inconclusive are not reliable sources for this information, I have posed a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948#RfC on what result is to be entered against the result parameter of the infobox regarding this. Let's see what the people at WP:RSN have to say about this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't see this, even though I posted after you! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Capitals00: ... there is not a single source that support Pakistani victory, thus Indian victory is not disputed at all. This is a non sequitur argument since this is not a binary choice (per MOS:MIL, where disproving one proves the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• This RfC should be closed. It has been subject to all sorts of drive-by and evidence-free POV pushing and is going nowhere. Given the amount of POV pushing, it seems to me that it is not possible to get a properly considered and sourced change to the lead and infobox, and the current version should stand, with a restriction of a three month ban on a new RfC on the same topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

Please remove the revisionist claims in the lead and infobox suggesting that Pakistan unilaterally started the Kashmir war by unleashing hoards of of Pathans on October 21. They reflect the Indian government's version of history and do not conform to WP:NPOV.

Indian troops entered Kashmir on October 17, weeks before the Pashtuns did - and more importantly, there was an internal rebellion against the unpopular Hindu Maharajah of Kashmir which only grew in intensity following Hari Singh's brutal crackdowns including the genocidal Jammu Massacres (mention of which has also been entirely omitted). For reference:

• Lamb (2003). Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 1846-1990. Oxford University Press. p. 155. India has used in this context the word “aggression”. The forces who crossed the Jhelum in the early hours of 22 October 1947 were “aggressors” sponsored by Pakistan; and, therefore, no solution to the Kashmir problem was possible until that “aggression” had been “vacated”. The Indian presence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir was by the express invitation of the Maharaja in order to repel this “aggression”: it was, therefore, perfectly legitimate. But who was “aggressing” on whom?
  
  It has been shown that the crossing of the Jhelum by parties of Pathan tribesmen on the night of 21/22 October 1947 was at the invitation of internal elements in the political struggle then going on in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The clearing of the way into the State at Domel was not that of forced entry by the tribesmen but of a gate being opened, as it were, by rebels within the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the interest of an entity which in two days was to declare itself the independent state of Azad Kashmir. The participa¬ tion of the tribesmen in what amounted to a civil war could well be considered to represent an error of political judgement on the part of those who sought their assistance; but it would be difficult in these particular circumstances to classify it as part of an act of external “aggression” by Pakistan.
  
  Indeed, if we accept Mahajan’s chronology, there is not in reality a great deal of difference between the position of these tribesmen on 22 October and that of the Indian Army airlifted to Srinagar on 27 October. At that moment on 27 October, it can be argued, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was still technically independent. The Indians were there at the invitation of the Maharaja on just about the same basis as the tribesmen were there at the invitation of the Poonch rebels now declared subordinates of the independent state of Azad Kashmir. Only after accession, which it seems highly probable did not legally take place until after the Indian intervention started, could it be argued that the Indians were now defending their own land against invaders. Moreover, whatever might be argued in defence of the timing, actual or intended, of the Indian intervention on 27 October, it could not be said that the Patiala troops, who were certainly in theory subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, only arrived after accession. They were there before the tribal advance of 22 October. Indeed, a good case can be made that the presence of the tribesmen was a direct response to the arrival of the Patiala troops. So, once again, who was “aggressing” against whom?
• Copland, Ian (2005). State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, c. 1900-1950. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 153. Likewise, the Kashmir government's pogrom against its Muslim subjects in Jammu was undertaken partly out of revenge for a formiadble uprising in Poonch...In Jine 1947 they commenced a no-tax campaign that rapidly escalated, courtesy of some heavy-handed reprisals by the darbar's police, into a widespread popular insurgency, spearheaded by a well-armed guerilla force of Indian Army veterans led by local zamindar Sardar Qayyum Khan.
  
  This so-called Azad Army would eventually number in excess of 50,000. On 15 August, Independence Day, Paksitan flags were raised all over the region and shortly afterwards the movement's self-appointed supremo, Muslim Conference MLA Sardar Ibrahim Khan, announced Poonch's secession from Kashmir.
• Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir : the unwritten history. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. ISBN 978-93-5029-897-8. OCLC 849305950. "After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute" Solblaze (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 23:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

See Alastair Lamb#Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990. The advantage of Lamb's various books on the events in Jammu and Kashmir in 1947-48 is that he gives the Pakistan and Azad Kashmir point of view, in the same way that the Indian official history of the war gave the Indian point of view. Oxford University Press published Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990 in Pakistan with a notice on it that it was not for sale outside of Pakistan - the R.U.S.I. library in London has a copy donated by the Pakistan Embassy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

::Lamb is a highly respected and unbiased authority on Kashmir.

Just because some Indian authors disagree with him it doesn't mean he's pushing a Pakistani POV. There is no shortage of Indian authors with a battleground mentality pushing absurd conspiracy theories like Out of India Theory and calling mainstream academic consensus a conspiracy to malign India either.

From Alastair Lamb#Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990.

"Munro observes that Lamb has written an authoritative history of Kashmir. He called Lamb's work a "tour de force" that "combines impeccable scholarship with an fascinating story". Munro sees that Lamb refutes India's claim on Kashmir and seriously indicts Indian actions, leaders and also his own countryman, Mountbatten."

"Victor Kiernan recommends the book. Kiernan notes that Lamb is the top authority on the region and describes the book, like Lamb's previous ones, as very thorough, uninvolved and objective, regardless of the rare instance where India is treated with "little sympathy."

"Historian Hugh Tinker notices that Alastair Lamb explains Kashmiri political history in a "masterly style." Tinker points out that Lamb is known as the foremost authority on the region but also notes that his findings will not be accepted by Indian authors, who see Kashmir as a test of Indian secularism.

"Copland observes that Lamb's analysis of the Kashmir conflict is the most detailed and describes his work as a "considerable feat of scholarship." Copland states that the problems in the book are "few and far between" and notes that this high calibre book's bibliography ignores post-1980 writings." Solblaze (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

Citation [49]:

For example Wajahat claims that Pakistani GHQ had no clue about the tribal attack. However Sardar Yahya Effendi clearly mentions on page-151 of his book precisely mentions that Commanding Officer of 11 Cavalry was called by Pakistani Director Military Intelligence Colonel Sher Khan, MC to the GHQ in last week of August 1947 and briefed about Pakistani invasion plan. On page 153 Effendi mentioned that the Pakistani DMI Brigadier Sher Khan instructions to...

Neither Sardar Yahya Effendi nor Agha Humayun Amin are "Indian government". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:No one is disputing the fact that sympathetic elements within the Pakistani military such as Colonel Sher Khan were covertly planning to support the Kashmiris, who had loathed the Maharajah's Dogra rule for centuries. This is a widely accepted fact.

However, the fact is, the Indian military "invaded" Kashmir before the tribesmen did - so how can you say in the infobox and lead that the tribal invasion prompted the Indian military to get involved?

Moreover, as lamb outlines, it is clear that foreign forces (Tribesmen and Indians) of equal legitimacy only intervened in Kashmir at the invitation of Azad and Dogra factions formed as the Maharaja's rule collapsed from internal rebellion - and Copland states the Maharajah's brutal reprisals such as the Jammu genocide worsened the rebellion - so why pretend that the tyrannical dogra rule had no role to play, and that it was all a Pakistani conspiracy? Solblaze (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Snedden too states internal dissent against the Maharajah, such as the Poonch rebellion and formation of Azad Kashmir that instigated the Kashmir conflict. Solblaze (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

It is not an invasion if the military deployment is at the request of the state's government. So for example, when the United States deployed VIII Bomber Command of the United States Army Air Forces in England in June 1942, that was a friendly act, and was not an invasion. When I say a friendly act - it was friendly to the state they deployed in (the United Kingdom) - it was not friendly to Germany, who VIII Bomber Command commenced bombing later in the year. The 1939 German invasion of Poland is classed as an invasion because it was not at the request of the Polish government and was an unfriendly act by the German government.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is your own opinion, as opposed to that of a scholarly source. See WP:OR.

Regardless, what you have said applies to Indian forces who arrived in Kashmir after October 27, when the Maharajah officially invited Indian forces to suppress the tribesmen and rebellion in Kashmir. Solblaze (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

Effendi's book was published in 2007, after Lamb's own book. So Lamb's analysis is now out of date. Effendi talks about Pakistani invasion plan in the last week of August. It corroborates what Indian writers have said for a long time about Operation Gulmarg, which became known to an Indian military officer on 20 August. Given the level of operational detail in the plan, it would have taken quite a bit of time to formulate it. So, all this planning was independent of whatever happened inside Kashmir after the Partition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

On the so-called "Indian forces"

The forces that Alastair Lamb writes about are the state forces of the Patiala State, which was a princely state that had acceded to the Indian Union. The state forces are not war-fighting forces. They were meant for internal security. All the princely states had surrendered external affairs and defence to the British Raj, and that continued after the Indian independence (and the same holds for Pakistan's princely states too). These forces were not under the command of the Indian Army.That integration happened much later, probably around 1950 when India became a Republic and the princely states were integrated into the Indian constitution.

Lamb has estimated precisely how many Patiala troops got sent to Kashmir. There was one battalion that was stationed in Jammu, and one "mountain battery" that was stationed in Srinagar. The Indian military writers that studied the J&K State Forces did not find any records on these troops in J&K. They believe that, since J&K's own forces got stretched out along the border, the Maharaja seems to have borrowed these troops from the neighbouring Patiala ruler for internal security of his capital cities.There is no evidence of the Government of India or the Indian Army being aware of this, since the Indian commander that landed in Srinagar was surprised to find them there. (This is the first time they got mentioned, according to Lamb himself.)

These are the facts. The rest is Lamb's own interpretation, subject to dispute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

Add categories

• Category:Battles involving India
• Category:Battles involving Rajputs

Rajanyas (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Could you specify the categories you'd like to add? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

[[Category:Battles involving India]]

[[Category:Battles involving the Rajputs]]

[[Category:Battles involving China]] Rajanyas (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rajanyas: what you are asking for is the wrong thing to do. (1) The article on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 is about a war; it does not belong in categories with names like Category:Battles involving India or Category:Battles involving China. (2) There is no Category:Battles involving Rajputs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

War date

@Toddy1: This article is titled after Indian intervention. It was on 26 October 1947 when India entered into this war after accession was signed by Jammu and Kashmir princely state.[26] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You are technically right. But we are not going to create a separate page for the first four days, are we? The conflict started on 22 October. That is the importanat date. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Local and Pakistani fighters were fighting with the Jammu and Kashmir princely state from much before 22 October 1947 as clear from 1947 Poonch rebellion which was superseded by this war. That's why those 4 days should be separated from this war.

Also, I object to this revert of yours. It was deemed that the RfC will decide the outcome that what needs to be the final sentence.[27][28] Now that RfC is closed, the sentence (as updated by Abhishek) should be there. Similar was there for years.[29] Ratnahastin (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I leave the start date to be decided by the rest of you.

As for the "final sentence" issue, it wasn't part of the RfC. So, there is nothing binding there. If the RfC provided a clear victor, I guess we would have added it to the lead. Since that is not the case, I would say that nothing is needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It was temporarily removed only due to the RfC but that is not the case now. The sentence that you reverted is not declaring a victor but only saying what the article says per WP:LEAD. It did the same thing before as well when the infobox was not conclusive, just like it is not now. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to reinstate this sentence, because it is informative. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That unsourced sentence was being placed after removing reliably sourced sentence. The edit war started on the same day to remove that long standing sentence.[30] That's why it was entirely removed here pending RfC. But now we must restore what reflects the article and that is what Abhishek had done. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996: The article title is currently "Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948"; it is not titled the "Indian intervention... " The Wikipedia article is written on the basis that the war started with the tribal invasion that started on 22 October 1947. The Poonch valley rebellion is treated as an event that led up to the war. Given that J&K State was forced to become part of India, from the Indian point of view, a start date for the war of 22 October 1947 makes perfect sense.

If you wanted to get really picky, you could claim that the war only became an Indo-Pakistani war when regular Pakistan Army units moved into J&K State - I think that was probably some date in November 1947. (We saw that kind of pickiness on Wikipedia with the Russian intervention in the Ukraine in 2014, with people claiming that the green men were not Russian.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What do good quality sources say. That is what we should follow. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toddy1: The Pakistani tribesmen were involved in this conflict since Poonch rebellion thats why nobody disputes the role of Pakistan. However, India got involved in this military conflict only from 26 October 1947. As Cinderella said, information from reliable source matters and Abhishek has already provided one source. I am providing one extra source which also says that India refused to help Jammu and Kashmir princely state until 26 October 1947.[31] Ratnahastin (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If you think that there should be an article called Indian intervention in Jammu and Kashmir in 1947, feel free to write it. Your citation is relevant to the question of when Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession. But that was only part of a sequence of events. The invasion began on 22 October. Hari Singh requested Indian Army troops on 24 October. The Indian Army Airlift Committee was formed on 25 October in response to that request. The document of accession was signed on 26 October. The first Indian Army troops landed in Srinagar on 27 October.

You wrote that nobody disputes the role of Pakistan. But that was precisely what Pakistan did in September and October 1947.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

In case I was not sufficiently clear, interpreting sources to arrive at a start date (eg India refused help until the instrument of accession was signed) is WP:OR as opposed to sources which say, the war started on X date or the war occurred between X and Y dates. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Toddy1 is right. The war started when the Pashtun tribesmen invaded Kashmir. Their target was the capital Srinagar.. See Pakistani tribal invasion of Kashmir. India got involved a few days later, but the war was already ongoing by then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a rationale for choosing a particular date as the start date of the war. However, it does not address my comment - sources saying the war started on X date. In terms of how we write an article, if we are to say in the article the war started on X date, then we need to have sources that say the war started on X date, particularly given the subject of the article - the Indo-Pakistani war of 47-48. This is a war between India and Pakistan - not between Pakistani tribesmen and Kashmiri forces. If sources explicitly tell us the Indo-Pakistani war started on X date and this was the date when Pakistani tribesmen attacked Kashmir, that is the date we report as the start of the war. If sources explicitly tell us the Indo-Pakistani war started on X date that was some other date (eg the date of accession), that is the date we report as the start of the war. I doubt that there are no sources which explicitly tell us the start date though there may be a disagreement in the sources. If there is a disagreement in the sources, that is what we report. However, such nuance would not be suitable for the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources report a sequence of events. It is a matter of nuance which of these events you consider to be the start of the war. The Wikipedia article is written on the basis that the tribal invasion on 22 October 1947 (Operation Gulmarg) was the start of the war. But you can pick earlier military actions by Pakistan as the start of the war:

"Mr Jinnah became impatient. His advisors had a scheme ready for 'direct action' and he gave the green signal. The scheme was well-conceived and was executed with considerable skill, at least in the initial stages. To begin with, a propaganda campaign was unleashed. A communal twist was given to the issue of accession and the Muslims of the state were urged to rise against their Dogra ruler. Then followed a series of raids, beginning in early September. The raids were executed by armed civilians from West Pakistan at several points on the state's border. Major General H.L. Scott, a British officer, was Chief of Staff of the State Army. All he did, or could do, was to send out detachments of troops to deal with each raid. This dispersed his Army, which was exactly the enemy's aim." "Among the raiders were Pakistan Army personnel, some in uniform. Many of the raids were led by their Army officers in civilian clothes. Pakistan disclaimed any responsibility for the raids. The presence of Pakistan Army personnel was explained away by saying that they were released personnel or men on leave." (Source: Praval, Major K.C. Indian Army After Independence (1993 ed.). p. 23.)

The Indian Official History page 13 says that raiders entered the state on 2 September, and that the first attacks by raiders were on 3 September.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: It is commonly written that the war started with the tribal invasion. For example:

• BBC The 1947- 48 war "The first Indo-Pakistani war started after armed tribesmen from Pakistan's north-west frontier province invaded Kashmir in October 1947."
• Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (26 November 2019) History of Conflict in India and Pakistan "October 1947 – January 1949: The first Indo-Pakistani war began following an invasion of Kashmir by armed tribesmen from Pakistan."

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, good observation. Cinderella157, the term "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947" is not that common in the literature. It was more common to call it "Kashmir War" (before 1965) or the "First Kashmir War" (after 1965). The term "Indo-Pakistani War" is justfied now, because myriads of sources say that "India and Pakistan fought three wars between themselves" (or something to that effect). But the title of the page should not affect the nature of the subject really. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I had a brief look at sources. What I am seeing is that they generally refer to the war beginning in October but are not specific as to an exact day. I did see the BBC source and the second you cite. The first Indo-Pakistani war began following an invasion of Kashmir by armed tribesmen is subtly different from saying The first Indo-Pakistani war began when armed tribesmen invaded Kashmir and The first Indo-Pakistani war started after armed tribesmen ... is not the same as saying The first Indo-Pakistani war started when armed tribesmen ... While it might be human nature to pigeon-hole things neatly, not everything fits into a nice neat box. This is such a case. We should follow the sources. If the sources don't give an exact date nor should we. Interpreting events to derive an exact date would be WP:OR. I have amended the infobox accordingly. I am not seeing that this requires further adjustment to the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That is fine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)