Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The problem with Indian casualty figures

Firstly, both the sources mentioned for Indian Army and State Forces KIA figures are now dead links and therefore, the data is no longer verifiable. Secondly, the Instrument of Accession was signed between Kashmir and India before the latter went to war with Pakistan. After the accession of Kashmir, the JAK Rifles were integrated into the Indian Army and therefore, it is highly improbable that the Government of India will officially publish casualty figures excluding JAK Rifles figures (contrary to what the article currently indicates). Because of the ambiguity and lack of verifiability, I'm removing the mentioned figures and replacing them by U.S. Congress Library figures. --King Zebu (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

background section has serious flaws

all historical sources agree that the valley of Kashmir was a mughal territory but the highlands of Ladakh and the hills of Jammu were FULLY INDEPENDENT DOMAINS.There were several unsuccessful Mughal attacks against Ladakh and only one partially successful adventure where the Ladakhis were assisted in their war against the Tibetans by the Mughals and agreed to pay the Mughals some taxes in return.This promise was promptly withdrawn by Ladakh and it reverted to its fully independent status.Similarly the mountain based kingdoms of Jammu,owing to their geographical location ,in vry heavily hilly and forested terrain forever remained beyonf the reach of Mughal central asian cavalry tactics.[Please see Airavat Singh's excellent source on the military history of these petty but srong kingdoms].This was the primary reason for those places staying Hindu.Any Mughal involvement ,at its peak,was as allies at best.

Moreover the Sikhs have been projected as invaders and interventionists in the background section.The truth is,it is Sikh activity that countered orthodox jihadi proselytization by the Mughals from completely eradicating Hinduism from the valley of Kashmir.

Greetings from Skylark and congrats on your good-work for our motherland as a soldier and now as a wikipedian.Please let me know your thoughts. Skylark2008 (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Skylark2008

Can you please cite some reliable sources for your claim? Shovon (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Check any good work by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar,Jadunath Sarkar or by Airavat Singh.Also check the history of Ladakh from any Bitish historian's work.Any work unaffialiated to marxist communist clique is going to attest to te truth.Thank you Skylark2008 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

Please do add WP:RS, but follow WP:CITE when doing so. Thank you so very much. --S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2011 (UT

I am challenging a very nebulous comment on this important article based on a very well recorded event namely the death of a Mughal emperor whose defeat by the Marathas and demise is widely held to be the start of the decline of the said empire.There is very little chance that the empire gained ANY new territory half a century after his death.By this time the Maratha and Sikh powers had acquired ascendancy over entire South Asia.As for the verifiability of the date of Aurangzeb's death please refer to any historical source[or even wikipedia]. Thank you.-Skylark

Skylark, you'll need to include specific sources and citations in your request. Wikipedia is a volunteer organization and doesn't have formal resources to follow up on edit requests. My suggestion is that you state clearly what changes you wish to see (i.e., specify the exact text you think should be used in the article) and include reliable sources, properly cited. Without that, you're unlikely to see any changes. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am contesting the statement"These small states, ruled by Rajput kings, were vassals of the Mughal Empire since 1757." I am challenging a very nebulous comment on this important article based on a very well recorded event namely the death of a Mughal emperor whose defeat by the Marathas and demise is widely held to be the start of the decline of the said empire.There is very little chance that the empire gained ANY new territory half a century after his death.By this time the Maratha and Sikh powers had acquired ascendancy over entire South Asia.As for the sources they are as follows- 1.Mughal history- Lane-Poole, Stanley (1906). History of India: From Mohammedan Conquest to the Reign of Akbar the Great (Vol. 3). London, Grolier society.  Lane-Poole, Stanley (1906). History of India: From Reign of Akbar the Great to the Fall of Moghul Empire (Vol. 4). London, Grolier society.  Owen, Sidney J (1912). The Fall of the Mogul Empire. London, J. Murray.  Burgess, James (1913). The Chronology of Modern India for Four Hundred Years from the Close of the Fifteenth Century, A.D. 1494–1894.. John Grant, Edinburgh. 2.Maratha history- Kasar, D.B. – Rigveda to Raigarh making of Shivaji the great, Mumbai: Manudevi Prakashan (2005)  Apte, B.K. (editor) – Chhatrapati Shivaji: Coronation Tercentenary Commemoration Volume, Bombay: University of Bombay (1974–75)  James Grant Duff – A History of the Mahrattas, 3 vols. London, Longmans, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green (1826) ISBN 81-7020-956-0 3.Sikh history-^ The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion, (Docherty,p.187)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Lord of the Five Rivers, By Jean-Marie Lafont. (Oxford University Press. Date:2002, ISBN 0-19-566111-7). Skylark2008 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

I emphasize that the Mughal state had NO EFFECTIVE control over the modern state of Jammu-Kashmir outside of the Kashmir valley.The modern geo-political unit ,as we know it was forged by the Dogra Rajput clan of the Jammu tract.They had their traditional seat of power in the Jammu district.From there they spread their influence all over Jammu.Then they helped the Sikhs in ejecting the Afghans from the valley of Kashmir where they had lodged themselves after ejecting the Mughals.At this time the Dogras accepted Sikh suzerainty.Thus the territories they conquered became parts of the Sikh empire.After the decline of the Sikhs,the Dogras negotiated directly with the British East India Company.Thus they became sovereign power in the Jammu tracts and the Kashmir valley.Using this as a base they eventually conquered Ladakh,Baltistan,Gilgit,the Dardic states of Chitral,Hunza etc.Ultimately all these disparate ethnic areas were brought under a unified political unit based in Srinagar under the Dogra Rajputs.Thus the entity called Jammu-Kashmir was literally created by the Dogra Rajputs.Any pretense of Mughal power in the state outside of Kashmir valley and its subsequent influence in shaping the political trajectory of the area is frivolus and potentially p.o.v.Any Mughal influence can be conclusively proved in the Kashmir valley,no doubt,but that’s the limit of the said influence.All the other political units in the area were independent and contributed to the politico-ethno-cultural tapestry of the region.Subsequently all these differences contributed to the complexity of the question of the inclusion of the different parts of the state to India or Pakistan.Thanks.Skylark2008 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

This assertion of Skylark2008 is refuted on Page536 of "History of the Panjab hill states", Volume 1 By John Hutchison, Jean Philippe Vogel, the citation in the article (ser 6). Also see pg 541 regarding waning of Mughal influence after Panjab captured by Durani. AshLin (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats a nice reference.However they only bear out the point that any effective influence by the Mughals on Jammu area was transitory and uncertain.And certainly NOT after 1757 as the article states.Any influence was hotly contested and permanently thrown off after a point of time.The influence on Kashmir velley is however unquestionable.BTW thx to Ashlin for this reference.Skylark2008 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark I suggest changing the date 1765 as it is clearly misleading as to the start date of Mughal influence-being effectively a period of Mughal decline.Further I suggest changing the status of the Jammu hill states to that of autonomous entities prior to the emergence of Sikh power.Mention may also be made of the continuous resistance offered from these otherwise small states to successive invasions from the North -West.Awaiting other editors'opinion.Skylark2008 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

This is POV bashing. The British reference that I mentioned explicitly states the position that the hill states were

vassals with princes as hostages in the Mughal courts. The gazetteer also states how the influence was lost - all in the history of Jammu state. AshLin (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC) That is not POV bashing.First of all,the date 1757 is completely off the point,as is even evident by the linked-article.Next,the keeping of the princes as hostages n the Mughal court is a direct evidence that the said tracts were NOT tributary vassals but active enemy states.The hostage keeping strategy was used to keep in check an unpacified enemy-as was in the case of Tipu Sultan many years later.The sons of Tipu were kept as hostages by the British as a gurrantee for Tipu's non-aggression.Once again ,modern Indian histriography as mentioned in the above sources,has conclusively argued that much of Indian history was deliberately misinterpreted by the colonial power to further its interests.Even going by the source,which ,I think is quite a good one,the date 1757 as laid out in the article is grossly wrong and the status of the hill states was always autonomous.The first true integration of those states was by the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh.The credit for building up Jammu and Kashmir state goes to the Dogra family of Jammu. Skylark2008 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark BTW thnks to whoever heard me and changed the offensive date to "since the time of Akbar....".At least a part of the wrong is undone.Waiting for someone to put the political status of those hill-states in the proper perspective.Skylark2008 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kashmir-information.com/Storm/chapter7.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

removed misleading text

removed POV misleading text after verification from the cited text in the article http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/g/019pho000000394u00076000.html . The Cited texts clearly stated that Ranjit Singh was the Ruler of the area before the British Conquered it and placed Their own ruler. The British had placed their own rulers at a number of provinces that they had conquered so that the administration of the newly conquered state would be easier for them . The Article stated that there waas no Ruler of the resion prior to this . this is wrong information, the area was not without a ruler. King Ranjit Singh was the ruler of the region. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence you removed never stated that Kashmir was without rule. It stated that the position called 'Mahraja of Kashmir' was not there before British. If you think the previous ruler, Ranjit Singh, used to go by that title, you should give a citation. Otherwise that statement is correct and not POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Queen of Great Britain is also considered as the Queen of scotland etc, she does not need a seperate title for that as its included in the province, same is the case with RAnjit Singh, you can read the article about him for more info . hope that answers your question. kindly remove that sentence, which infers that there was no ruler of Kashmir as that is not the case. Even you are aware of this fact as you have read the citation. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The same way, Ranjit Singh may also go by many titles but not by this one. It certainly does not say or give a hint that there was no ruler at all. The sentence very clearly states that there was no such position or title (which is not misleading). These two things are different. Just like you can't call the Queen of Britain as Maharani of Britain because that's not the title she goes by (may be you can do that when you write history in Urdu or Hindi, since it would translate to that, but not in English. And this is the Engilsh wikipedia). If you dispute that he used to go by that title, then you need to give citation as the burden of proof is on you in that case (WP:BURDEN). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well whoever made Gulab Singh The Ruler of Kashmir, The Fact is Gulab Singh was the Ruler of Kashmir, even if you continue denying it. And SinceKAshmir was a part of RAnjit Singhs Empire , Ranjit Singh was the King of the Province before that. I have also added some of tags as I feel that the section is not based on Verifiable citations but based on Forum Talk.Hence i am challenging these. I would welcome If proper citations are provided for these. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was not your edit. You are trying to change the topic. Yes he was the ruler of Kashmir even though appointed by the British. But that wasn't the discussion going on here. It was about the title information that you removed. Note that this is not a forum but a place to discuss for the improvement of this article. Discussing who became the ruler and how is forum discussion. And hey, you can't add to every single phrase, that paragraph is already cited. Especially the fact that the British appointed the next ruler. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed for texts stating Pakistans view in the article

Well Everyone on WikiPedia can challenge COntent if they are unverifiable and the content appears to be a 'Forum chat'. I have also added some of [citation needed] tags as I seriously feel that the section is not based on Verifiable citations but based on Forum Talk. The section needs a cleaning and proper citations . There are some serious claims made in the article that has to be properly cited in order to avoid removal. At the moment its purely based on forum chat and opinions, the other serious claims made in the article needs thorough cleaning and redressal Hence i am challenging these very serious claims. for e.g.

• It has only one Citations that says the ruler of Kashmir was appointed by the british .
• Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army .
• it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler.
• There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir"
• Pakistan decided to send its troop but pakistani general refuse
• General saying India under British crown so will not attack
• The Capture of Gilgit , baltistan chitral needs citations as well

Its an established fact that prior to British rule Kashmir was a princely state and always had a ruler or was a part of an empire. I would welcome If proper citations are provided for these. I would also ask Hassanhn5 not to revert the citations as we know reverting such edits can be claimed as edit war. its not upto u to present them .other editors can help giving the citations and improving the sections. The presence of citations will improve the article and the content will change accordingly so that it does not appear a forum chat. Kindly dont make your own rules like you cant add citations tags read Wikipedia:Verifiability. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I also Challenge[| this edit ] the edit summary presented by user is misleading as at this moment the whole para is NOT AT ALL CITED and Only one statement that says the ruler of Kashmir was appointed by the british is cited with a verifiable reference. Kindly lets not make attempts to mislead others by using terms such as Well CITED para when in reality is not. We can clearly [|see the difference]. If you are not happy with the number of [Cn] tags then i have removed two of them and pointed [Cn] tags only where serious claims are made --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can't prove your edit, it doesn't mean that you put the burden of proof on the wrong side. You made an edit removing a sentence from the article without giving citation or proof for the removal and now you are adding citation needed tags to every single phrase of the paragraph. It is on you to prove if there was a position known as "Maharaja of Kashmir" before the British since you are the one who made the first edit to challenge the text already in the article. For rest of the phrases, there's a template on the top of the article asking to add inline citations. That is a better way than adding a magnitude of tags to make the paragraph unreadable. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your edits have been reverted 3 times. Beware of WP:3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neither did i add nor did i restore material. Its you who has done it without proper citations. I hope u understand whats stated there,. And stop blaming me for everything, if you are supporting those text, why dont you support it with proper citations that is expected and do the community a favour rather than blindly Supporting a text just because it satisfies your own POV. since its good to give time to editors to find citations thats why i placed tags which you have removed repeatedly .On my part I have tried looking for citations but all the source i found was Forum TALK and hence i strongly support removal and clearance of this section that is presenting Forum talk on an Imp Article. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, there's a citation needed tag on the top of the article. That just means the article needs a lot of citations. Placing a magnitude of tags makes the article unreadable. That's disruptive editing. It is interesting how you quote things in parts. You should read that full section. And the article states that the British appointed him as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" and not that he took the title of the heredity rulers. The information you are removing is not added/restored material. It is negative implication according to the citation. If you want it to imply that this is wrong, you need to give in a citation, and I'll be okay with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention made of the Maharaja of kashmir's role in the article? It appears to completely ignore what he did. Or is someone trying to cover up on Wikipedia? Satanclawz (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag

I have removed the flag of Azad Kashmir and also listed the tribal militias as a separate belligerent group because, lacking appropriate sources and a detailed discussion in the body of the article, we are assuming that the Pashtun tribes and the Pakistani state were one and the same (but putting the flag of Azad Kashmir contradicts this). Also there was no such entity as Azad Kashmir when the war broke out so we cannot use the flag here. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is well documented that the initial tribal invasion consisted on Pashtun regulars who were incited by Pakistani Army officers and aided by recently demobilised ex-servicemen of Poonchie Mussalman descent who were stiffened with a few Pakistani Army officers. Hence it can on no circumstance be called a freedom fighter movement especially as the tribals ravaged the cities they liberated such as Mirpur. Azad Kashmir flag is meaningless keeping in mind that the state formed after the War was over. AshLin (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see American War of Independence for reference, although the united states was not there at that time, but the flag is put in place to represent the state that would later be formed. As for the tribal fighters the reference has been given. As far as I remember this article also mentions uprisings in kashmir to over through the maharaja... those would count as freedom fighters. As I've not yet backed up my claim of uprisings by a reference (which might already be present in the article), I'll agree for it to be Tribal militias for now. It is POV to mention them as Pakistan backed as all were not. Did I read chitral scouts some where in the article text? Also, a third column for the tribal belligerents is completely out of question because backed by Pakistani state or not, they were on the same side. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I voluntarily follow WP:1RR so I'm not going to revert until we are in agreement. Comparing the United States and Pakistan is an apples to oranges comparison. The US first declared independence and then went to war; at the end of the war they emerged victorious as a separate state. No such thing happened in this war. Kashmir is still claimed by India entirely. Additionally there was no United Nations in 1776. But let's not make this a forum and let's just stick to sources. I would ask that you:

1. Provide sources for stating that the flag of Azad Kashmir existed at the outset of the war and that the UN or a majority of the nations of the world recognized the flag back then or is recognized now.
2. Provide sources for stating that the tribal militia backed by the Pakistani state were one and the same with the Pakistani state (our current neutral source already says During Pakistan's first war with India in 1947-48, sparked by the territorial dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the military's use of tribal lashkars (tribal militias) set a dangerous precedent of relying on non-state actors to settle scores with a much larger and more powerful neighbor.
3. That you take a look at a well developed article like India to understand that we can only start editing article leads and infoboxes after we've ironed out the details in the body of the article (per WP:LEAD).
4. Once your bring your sources to the table, we are going to have to apply WP:WEIGHT to figure out the majority and minority viewpoints (the minority viewpoints certainly have their place as explained by Jimbo Wales in an e-mail.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Only after this process is complete can we let your edits stand. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The point you gave about US and Pakistan is a misjudgement. You are comparing the wrong things that's why you're getting the wrong implication. I'm referring to the comparison of the flags and not for the other things especially whether they became separate state or not. The question that Kashmir is entirely claimed by India (or Pakistan), which are both verifiable claims, has nothing to do with who was fighting in the war. United Nations has no significance here either since its not a matter of the Kashmir dispute but Kashmir war and UN doesn't come into question till ceasefire. I'd like you to check the wikipedia trend that those names are generally given to the belligerents which they refer to themselves as. The flag of Azad Kashmir was a result of the war, i.e. it represents the resistance that formed the self governed body. Whether it's recognized as a country or state by any one at all is not in question here since I didn't claim that. I'm talking about it as an entity (administrative or otherwise).

About the sources for tribal forces being on the same side with Pakistan, I think it's trivial and WP:BURDEN would be on you to say otherwise. The main fact that supports this is that there were only two sides, one fighting against the accession of Kashmir to India and one for it. Giving it a third column would amount to adding content and require references on your behalf. Also, it will be misleading since a third column would implicate a third party with its own motives fighting against both India and Pakistan. See the bangladesh liberation war for instance, India and East Pakistan are added in the same column since they were on the same side i.e. separation of East Pakistan as Bangladesh.

I'd like to quote that former princely state forces were also acting to back up Pakistan:

The Gilgit and Baltistan territories were secured for Pakistan by the Gilgit Scouts and the forces of the state of Chitral, another princely state that had acceded to Pakistan.

Please note that I'm not pushing any POV here, just following the format that includes flags in the belligerents section, and this one seemed most appropriate as I gave the comparison of US. All other separations also usually represent the flag of the later formed entity unless a different flag was present for that war. If there's any other flag that you can refer to, I'm ok with removing this one.

Further more, here are some references that refer to the tribal fighters as freedom fighters or in some refers to them as tribal fighters in context of them being later joined in war by Pakistan (and supported not backed by Pakistan). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The references include neutral and Pakistani references both. I think the word freedom fighters as per wikipedia's own defination as well as the references is neutral enough to be used. Also, it is now clear that Pakistan joined the war of freedom/tribal fighters and it was not the other way round. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

initially, the tribal intervention was spontaneous, as confirmed by reliable secondary sources. soon after the signing of the instrument of accession by the maharaja, the tribal militias were used by the pakistani army. it's also a fact that part of the state forces of kashmir rebelled and joined the pakistani side, exemplified by the gilgit scouts who were led by major william brown (a hero of present-day gilgit-baltistanis). however, all this does not justify the inclusion of the azad kashmir-flag. as noted by zuggernaut, the lead and info boxes summarize the main content of the article. on the other hand, it seems that the poonch rebels did indeed establish a "azad kashmir"-government... but instead of using google books to find convenient lines i suggest you do some serious and proper scholarly research on this issue. read reliable secondary sources thoroughly, investigate, and at the end, include your findings in the main text. after that, you'll might have a case for inclusion of the flag. this is the only way to write a proper and solid encyclopedia.-- mustihussain  18:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mustihussain, please provide specific reliable sources for the "initial" tribal intervention. That would be useful. AshLin (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I got sucked in to this article following a link at one of the Wikipedia noticeboards. I now need to exit this article due to my own reasons. Except the BBC, the sources provided by lTopGunl will not pass the reliability test (no information on who their editorial boards are, what kind of reputation they have in the publishing world, etc). The BBC source does not call them freedom fighters. I have watchlisted the page but I will stop editing it for now. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if there's a problem with the bbc that's a going to be general RS issue because it's quoted widely on wiki. Also, they didn't call them freedom fighters, but tribal militia in context of acting without Pakistan's backing. Anyway, there are other sources backing both the word freedom fighter and the initial non involvement of Pakistan.

Mustihussain, I added the flag as per the example of other Independence wars, 2 of which I cited for comparison here. If there was a different flag, and a citation is presented, I have no issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed my point. if you read the article about the american war of independence you'll notice that the congress' declaration of independence and the founding of the united states is clearly mentioned. the american flag in the infobox is fine as it summarizes the content of the article. this is not the case here. the article does not mention the founding of azad kashmir at all.-- mustihussain  16:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then lets see if we can get another flag for the militia. Although you're right, but the result was the formation of Azad Kashmir. That is represented by the flag. In anycase, if that has to be replaced, better look for a new flag icon. At declaration of independence; it is very much in the context of the rebelling Kashmiris declaring independence (which they had). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

you don't have to look for another flag. as i mentioned above, it seems that the poonch rebels did indeed form a azad kashmir government in october 1947...as i suggested before: look into this matter by studying pertinent reliable secondary sources and investigate. if this is confirmed, make the additions to the main text.-- mustihussain  17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. That figures. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The POV template

Can either of the editors who keep editwarring this shitty template into this article explain how a war between two nations for territorial conquest of Kashmir has anything to do with separatism? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The template is not POV, as was determined by consensus, so you should stop referring to it as such. The war was started to liberate/free Kashmir from India, so the Kashmir template is relevant. Mar4d (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war was started as Pakistan wanted it's territory. It has nothing to do with separatism so I will remove it again as you again fail to actually show a reason for it to be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, to seperate Jammu and Kashmir from India. It has everything to with seperatism, so I will restore it again as you fail to actually show a reason for it not to be here. Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show how it belongs here, not I. It was a war of territorial conquest, it had fuck all to do with separatism or freedom for the people of Kashmir. So it will go, and it will remain gone. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The 47 war was incited by the separatists as repeatedly stated about the war around here. The template is relevant on this article. Also do not wrongly accuse me of edit war again, I made a single revert. You're on a civility notice. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war is relevant to the separatist movement, as this movement has a background that the Kashmiris didn't want to be part of India when India was partitioned and with this war India occupied part of Kashmir. And from then a struggle for separatism started. --SMS ^Talk 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• @DS: Since you refuse to get it, there is no burden on me to convince you otherwise. You could do away with your threats, it will remain. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden is entirely on those wishing to add anything to an article, TG I did not accuse you of anything, please refrain from even talking to me to prevent further issues. This war had nothing to do with the separatist movement, it was a war of conquest. The template will go.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war was started and fought by Pakistani forces (Military and Tribal) and not Kashmiris as is being claimed above.--DBigXray 17:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not one of the objecting users here has presented any credible or genuine reason behind their claim that the war is not an effort related to Kashmir separatism from India. The recent removal of the template in the article is disruptive behaviour, with the user clearly not able to make a proper case at the discussion here. The article shall be restored to its original version and WP:DR needs to be followed. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I tell you this, YOU need to prove it belongs, follow policy. Your slowmo edit war will be reported as will your continuing to ignore policy. It was a war of conquest, not a war for separatism your saying it was a war to free Kashmir from India is WP:OR. And no, WP:DR does not need be followed, but policy does. Meet the WP:BURDEN Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Mar4d Inserted a POV template B , another editor reverted R and now we discuss D. so we must follow WP:BRD without any further edit warring. --DBigXray 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is bad enough he edit wars this template in with no consensus, he also removed reliably sourced content I had added yesterday. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has added a template to this article which apparently deals with the Kashmir separatist movement. There is now a dispute as to how a war of conquest by Pakistan has anything to do with Kashmir separatism. Does this template belong on this article?

Comments

• Remove Pakistan invaded and lead the militias who took part in the conflict. This conflict was a war of territorial conquest, it has nothing to do with separatism for the people of Kasmhir. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Pakistan attacked Kashmir because it believed that Kashmir should belong to Pakistan. I agree with Darkness Shines, it had nothing to do with separatism. --sarvajna (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, see below the precise reasons of separatism in Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Four broad categories which are attributed as reasons for separatism in Kashmir, according to Sumit Ganguly, quoted in Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age, p.152 by Robert Wirsing:

1. Involvement of Pakistan and claims on Kashmir in the conflict (if your argument is to be accepted, we are on that very article right now)

Followed by these three obvious ones:

2. The Indian state (its misrule, repression, and denial of Kashmiri self-determination)

3. The Kashmiri nationalist movement (both secular and religious, the "emergence of ethnic subnationalism in Kashmir and its challenge to the Indian state")

4. Ganguly proposes that the best explanation of the origins of the secessionist insurgency in Kashmir is to be found in structural dichotomy - "the increase in political mobilization of Kashmiris against a background of institutional decay in India." Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And those have what exactly to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

But thank you for the source, which says on p173 "When preparations got under way in Pakistan during that month to lay forcible claim to the state by transporting several thousand armed Pashtun tribal raiders from the North-West frontier to the state border" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing Kashmiri separatism? Have you already forgotten what you started this RfC on? :o) Mar4d (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is on whether or not the template which is about separatism has anything to do with this war, the source you provided shows it was not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the Sumit Ganguly source you are trying to quote, it says that the wars were bilateral conflicts The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace in page 3 it says The people of either Pakistan-held "Azad Kashmir" or Indian-held Kasmir were not active participants in the bilateral conflicts. Indeed in 1965.... one more for you

India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute page 113 Accounts of the Kashmiri Muslim separatism uprising in the popular media generally date its formal onset to a series of antigovernment demonstartions, strikes, and sporadic violent attacks on isolated government targets that began at scattered locations in the valley of Kasmir in July 1988 This war of 1947 has nothing to do with Kashmir separatism, it was started much later by the pakistan assisted groups --sarvajna (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Remove The war was initiated and fought by Pakistani forces (Military and Tribal) nothing to do with separatists.--DBigXray 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with seperatists"?.... nothing can be further from the truth. Mar4d (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Relation of 1947 era with Kashmiri separatism:

After India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947, the Hindu maharajah of Kashmir elected to have Kashmir join India, despite its overwhelmingly Muslim majority population which were opposed to this move. The United Nations ordered a referendum on the matter which was never held. Kashmiri separatists, allegedly armed and supported by Pakistan, have been fighting ever since for their independence from India and many would apparently prefer independence from Pakistan also. This dispute has its roots in nationalism, although it is flavoured by religious sources.

— Jamila Hussain, Islam: Its Law and Society (2004), p. 60

Mar4d (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• This quote doesn't say anything about this war. You questioned how 'Pakistan Murdabad‎‎' relates to India; here you cite something else which has nothing to do with this! Now I am sure either you have issues relating things or you are intentionally pushing it! Nobody can win over with baseless comments -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Actually I also thought exactly the way you did that how this is related to war, but re-reading it made me understand the relation. You may also consider reading the above passage again and this time see how ever since is used in it. --SMS ^Talk 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Still it makes no difference to relate here. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per a number of sources that relate the 1947 war with the separatist movement (like, [8]). And the answer to the question "Why the separatist movement started?" starts from the First Kashmir War 1947. The Separatist movement is a consequence of this war (besides many other incidents), so this template is very much relevant here and navigates a user interested in reading the relevant content. --SMS ^Talk 22:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: sources are present for separatism.. the removal was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Remove It is irrelevant here. Kashmir conflict nav serves the purpose. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Its completely irrelevant. The template itself is in a very bad state, and the only purpose it is doing here is to push POV. As said by others, an invasion by another country has nothing to do with the so called "separatist movement". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources say something else. "Invasion" is Indian view point. Or if you think Pakistan invaded India, that's a lot of territory captured by Pakistan in that case... this should be titled as a crushing victory then... I think you'll support the opposite view when that comes to discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think, its your wish. It does not matters who invaded whom, the thing is this template is irrelevant. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia has become an untrustworthy source of information! Almost everyone in this thread should step away and let less involved editors reassert an encyclopaedic perspective, which is necessarily dispassionate about localised interpretations.

It is a perspective that should have no regard for the nationalist, separatist, or chauvinist sensitivities of the hot-heads with emotional attachments to these events. Why would anyone but the people involved in this dispute care about whom to blame for what actually happened? Cite facts about what happened, and point-counterpoint interpretations. Then be done with it and move on.

Don't bother lecturing me about history or some peculiar neckbeard interpretation of Wikipedia etiquette. I am here solely because of the automatic invitation to comment initiated by the template. I have no desire to be involved in this willful effort to politicise and re-ignite ethnic shitfights. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:42, 23 July 2012 (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.

POV in lead

I have removed a highly one-sided paragraph from the lead which ignores the dispute that existed on India's accession of Kashmir and only depicts the accounts of the war post-invasion. Discuss here and do not revert. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• There was a ref already in that section for that. i have also added an inline ref for it, its from a neutral encyclopedia. I thought you were fond of WP:BRD and you here are following BRRRRRD--DBigXray 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  That was a massive source falsification, the source never said the war started on with Pakistan troops invasion, neither did it say that Pakistan sent its forces to suppress an uprising in southeast of kingdom, please don't edit war without reading/understanding the source. --SMS ^Talk 12:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't find any such thing. Please quote the text then. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• if you have a problem with the word Starting, should you be removing the whole para ? that is content removal using a disguise.--DBigXray 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph has a problem. The beginning of the war has been falsified and the article already states the actual one. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase the war started when rest of it is factual, properly sourced and neutral enough. please present a better lead here, that you feel is neutral enough so that we can discuss it here--DBigXray 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please make it clear on what needs to be added or deleted? The whole discussion seems to be very vague for a person like me who has started watching this page very recently. Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is over this edit which removed well sourced content. I have modified the phrase using this. the source is an encyclopedia from a neutral third party. --DBigXray 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot DBig I do not see any issue with what you have added, it cannot be called as falsified paragraph as it has good source. Without that paragraph there would not be proper continuity in the lead, we should mention about how/when the war was started. -sarvajna (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not added the content but yes i restored it when it was wrongly removed. agree with you on your comment above.--DBigXray 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think you've read then how the war started. There was an element of separatism. The "invasion by Pakistan" is an Indian POV. We've to follow a neutral POV. Sources can be cherry picked. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please get you so called neutral POV sources and do not try to push pakistani POV without them. The source mentioned is very much neutral. -sarvajna (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pushing Pakistani POV with neutral sources... lol funny statement. Do not inflame the discussion by alleging POV pushing which I did not on any editor directly rather on content. Keep your comments on the content. WP:NPOV is a core policy and you are not going to get around that in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been here for sometime to know that NPOV is a core policy, the content was added/corrected by an editor and this is what you said The "invasion by Pakistan" is an Indian POV. Sources can be cherry picked.. As you said lets not inflame the discussion, please get better sources if you feel that the source already present in not neutral(which I do not know why you claim that). -sarvajna (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• SMS, accuse me of source falsification again and I will be most displeased. The source most certainly does support the edit. And it is noT an "Indian POV" it is an historic fact that Pakistan invaded using the spurious excuse of an uprising in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

initial indian operations in the valley of Kashmir

there were some fantastic battles fought in the early phase, it seems that it would worth some more detail such as we find here.

http://ikashmir.net/pakraid1947/shalteng.html http://www.sikhreview.org/december2003/book.htm

The book pays glowing tributes to the bravery and gallantry of officers, JCO’s and Jawans who faced the hardships and challenges cheerfully and never flinched from service to their country. Indeed 1 Sikh saved Srinagar in 1947. Amarinder Singh is all praise for it, “By their courage, skill and devotion to duty, they had prevented the city from falling into the hands of the raiders and denied them the airfield….”

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/sandhu.html

it was a pretty fantastic set of battles fought by a small units, ahead of the bigger fights.

--Patbahn (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian Defence Review has a nice excerpt of the battle for srinigar http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/defence-of-srinagar-1947/2/ including the actions of 1 SIKH in holding the road and airfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to the Wikipedia article on the battle of Badgam --Patbahn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Background Needs serious correction

"Prior to 1815, the area now known as "Jammu and Kashmir" comprised 22 small independent states (16 Hindu and 6 Muslim) carved out of territories controlled by the Amir (King) of Afghanistan, combined with those of local small rulers. These were collectively referred to as the "Punjab Hill States". These small states, ruled by Rajput kings, were variously independent, vassals of the Mughal Empire since the time of Emperor Akbar or sometimes controlled from Kangra state in the Himachal area. Following the decline of the Mughals, turbulence in Kangra and Gorkha invasions, the hill states fell successively under the control of the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh." The person who introduced this paragraph conveniently forgets that of the hill states, only Jammu, Ladakh, Hunza, Nagar and Gilgit are in the current territory of Kashmir and rest of them are actually in the current Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. I don't know where Chitral, Amb and those fit in. And this paragraph is unwarranted since the at the time of the discussion, only three kingdoms existed in Kashmir area - Kashmir, Hunza and Nagar; Hunza and Nagar as vassals of Jammu and Kashmir. If at all the history starts, it should start with events happening from 1920 or 1930 and not 1815. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.251.248 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Indian victory in this war Pakistan got victory because half of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan and India also loose it Asfand yar Asfand (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

The infobox seems to have a number of issues. As far as I can see there are three major issues:

• The "territorial changes" seem to be highly biased and spreads misinformation as it tries to depict as if India had control over the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir before the war which by no means is true, the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Maharaja of J&K only in 26th October while the war began on 22nd October. Moreover it uses the word "conquer" to show Pakistan's territorial gains which seems quite improper in any military scenario in the modern age. Therefore both the words "conquer" and "retained control" used to represent the territorial gains of Pakistan and India respectively are biased and do not represent the true scenario. The proper wording for both these cases should be "gained control" since none of the countries had control over the regions they gained control of prior to the war.

• The flag of the modern state of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan) has been used to represent the tribal militia which played part on the Pakistani side. This is misrepresentation due to the fact that there was no entente called Azad Kashmir during that time nor did the tribal militias have an unified flag which could be used to represent them. The flag needs to be removed.

• Citations are long due for the number of casualties and losses sustained on both sides (excluding the number killed on the Indian side). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Papa Boy (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, if you want wording changes, please find reliable sources that use the wording you support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The article makes clear that India intervened on behalf of the former ruler of the State whereas Pakistan intervened on behalf of the rebels. So "retained control" for one and "conquered" for the other are perfectly legitimate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, There was not even a single Indian soldier in Kashmir before the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947! Then how could you write Retained for Indian and Conquered for Pakistan? This seems to be pure WP:FAKE, You can google and find numerous sources! The war was initially started by thousands of Pakistani tribesmen armed by Pakistan Army. They marched even in the Srinagar and by 27 October were within 30 miles of their goal. On the same day Maharaja Hari Singh signed Instrument of Accession and thereafter Indian Troops were flown to the state! By November 1947, Indian forces has cleared the Kashmir valley, relieving the pressure on srinagar. In December the rebels launched new offensive in the southwest and heavy fighting continued till march 1948, thereafter Pakistan troops too entered in support of rebels. The heavy fighting continued till 31 December 1948. Thereafter UN mandated ceasefire on 31 December 1948, effective - 1 Jan 1949! A final ceasefire was agreed on 29 July 1949 with India Conquering about 67% of Kashmir Territory and Pakistan only gained approximately 33% Kashmir territory of which he named Azad Kashmir! [9] Therefore either replace 'Retained' word with 'Conquered' or simply write 'Gained' on both sides - 101.60.240.244 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The term "conquer" does not appear in your source. It says India was "left in control of...", which is cognate with "retained control." - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, It seems like you neither had read the full source nor my full comment! It is there written that "India kicked back Pakistan armed rebels and pakistani troops till the UN mandated ceasefire and India thus gained 67% Kashmir territory. More reference: [10], [11] Therefore either replace 'Retained' word with 'Conquered' or simply write 'Gained' on both sides. - 115.184.75.45 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, your "comment" is your opinion and WP:OR. I am not interested in debating it. If you have a reliable source that says India conquered territory, please product it. Otherwise, you should retire from this discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I already provided you the references! I think this " this will be enough to write either gained or conquered on both sides! Writing Retained in Indian side and conquered in Pakistan side seems to a pure one sided and biased and moreover, this is just like changing the entire history! 115.184.75.45 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, one short paragraph of 4 lines with wishy-washy coverage doesn't convince any one. Even then, this source only says it resulted in "falling within the Indian control." The word "conquered" does not appear. So this is of no use. One might say that, in the same way, Pakistan did not "conquer" territory either. It merely took over the territory that was already under the control of the rebels. I am sympathetic to that argument. If everybody is happy with such a change, I am happy to change "conquered" to "acquired control of" for Pakistan. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well Kautilya3! Had the maharaja forces were able to defend Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh and India job was only to held its ground, then word "retained" would be correct! No doubt but was Maharaja Forces was able to defend it's ground? Ans- Nope! This refrence makes it clear that pakistan armed rebels were able to capture even Srinagar and were within 30 miles of their goal! Maharaja has already lost far amount of its land from pakistan and then on 27 October 1947, the maharaja signed Instrument of Accession! Indian Forces then recaptured lost grounds (which rebels and pak troops captured by defeating maharaja forces)! Thus India gained 2/3 Kashmir and pakistan only 1/3 that too lost much ground of what it's armed rebels captured before Indian troops entered battlefield! I suggest add Gained word for both! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

It does not appear that additional citations are necessary in order to come to conclusion regarding the wording that should be used for the "territorial changes" section. It is quite clear with the sources provided in the article that prior to the eve of the war, the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan. It is also quite clear with the sources provided in the article that after the signing of the ceasefire agreement, India had control over app. 2/3rd of the territory of the Former Princely State while Pakistan had control over app. 1/3rd of the territory of the Former Princely State. Therefore, I do not understand the confusion regarding the wording which in its current form is certainly biased as it implies that the Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir was under Indian control prior to the eve of the war with the usage of the word "retain control" which is certainly not true. Therefore I would request Kautilya3 to provide exact grounds on which he believes that the current wording of the "territorial changes" section is correct. Blue Papa Boy (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

MBlaze, you said yourself that India "recaptured lost grounds." That is not "gaining" or "conquering." Those terms are only used when new territory is gained which didn't originally belong to the country. So they have no place here. Blue PapaBoy, Sources are always necessary, especially when the issues are contentious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well ! That was just a typo mistake ! i mentioned well in the brackets that which rebels and pak troops captured by defeating maharaja forces ! Indian forces came later in the war and manage to gain 2/3 Kashmir ! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

More refs have been added to infobox regarding causalities. They all seem reliable. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3, Sorry for the necro, but it seems that the wording in the infobox has changed since this discussion. Since no one has been able to produce reliable sources yet, I am reverting the territorial changes back to what they were before, as it is the most factually correct wording. SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

infobox numbers

I am removing the number of wounded/killed from infobox as the sources are not third party. They are Indian sources and as we have seen earlier in numerous discussions, neutral sources are required to source these claims. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse to remove reliably sourced content that has included estimates from neutral sources. Look at the page history, these estimates remains unchallenged for many years. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

IF there are neutral sources then cite them, do not blindly revert. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They are Indian sources and this inherently biased I have added a short description about how they are Indian estimates. We could possibly add Pakistani sources also to the Indian casualties portion to even out the bias? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Partition of India section

2nd para in "Partition of India" section seems like original research. In short it is written that "Indian forces occupied much of Kashmir mainly because for some reasons Pakistan did not manage to send troops to Kashmir in due time and by that time India occupied that part". Which seems to be historically incorrect, we need to verify the source.--Human3015^TALK  18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The basic incidents are corrected but the text is full of OR. In the first place, the section should be titled "Accession of Kashmir". The Partition was not applicable to Kashmir because it was a princely state. The main article link is also therefore spurious. The correct main article is Kashmir conflict. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

War territorial change

As far I am concencered that 2/3 rd kashmir was signed by hari Singh to india not captured ....while Pakistan captured it in war Libra bro (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See the section Infobox issues above. Do you have something new to add? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected the article for 3 days; participants are invited to make good use of the talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible POV tag

I think a point of view tag needs to added as the infobox is highly biased towards figures conjured up by Indian sources not even one Pakistani source is provided what do you guys above think? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Classic case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Classic case of Indian point of view pushing I guess I will look for Pakistani sources and add them to the infobox. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Mblaze vandalism

meta-level discussion

I am not sure whos sock you are but I can tell you are pushing the pov of a banned user with your behaviour I suggest you start providing proper arguments about why Indian sources should be trusted and neutral ones ignored. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Your comment is only proving that you are certainly not a newbie. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC) You will eventually be exposed as a sock as usual these articles are filled with nationalist sockers such as yourself then all your edits will be reverted. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, Lol please go ahead and it will end up in you getting a permanent ban. :- ) MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC) LOL another one bites the dust time to revert all your bs come back again after a few months so your new sock gets hunted down your probably occultzone or some other long time abuser but you will be found out eventually. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and meat puppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We need to discuss the vandalism this page has gone through with the actions of Knightwarrior25 socks and we also need to discuss what role a sock enabler such as Kautilya3 has on these pages maybe its a way of hiding behind a sock so to avoid attention to his own pov? or maybe he has a connection to the socks themselves. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am taking responsibility for all the edits that MBlaze Lightning has done. So, please don't bother reverting them. You should revert them only if you have policy-based reasons to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Policy is to revert all socks and ignore all sock supporters such as yourself. You are hereby ignored from here on. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

So they call you a meatpuppet interesting. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 what do u mean by taking responsibility? Are you saying you and him are one account? do explain FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

He is obviously in cahoots with banned users by his own admission. I will revert you without a second thought from here on. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As per policy that I have linked above, and you don't appear to have read, any user can revert a blocked user's edits, and any user can reinstate them. The user that reinstates them takes responsibility. So, I am declaring now, to save you the trouble, that I will take responsibility for all of MBlaze's edits. So, you should revert them only if you have policy-based reasons to do so. Any revert that says "reverting blocked user" or "reverting sock edit" will be undone. If you don't follow the policy, I will be taking you to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As per BS. No one can take responsibility for banned users your argument holds no water you will eventually follow the path of your banned sock chums. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[12] That is all I need to make sure Mblazes edits are removed and thus yours are also removed since your his meat puppet I have seen this before banned users come along add their crap and established users back them after getting caught out. 5.71.195.155 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What do I mean by taking "responsibility?" I mean what the policy says: Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content. I think you need to stop game-playing and focus on improving Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2016 (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.

Infobox

meta-level discussion

Why is there an edit war on the infobox? The sock's edits should be reverted out right and then any user looking to back them up as their own should get concensus for them before adding them back as I see there is no consensus achieved on the talk page to make those edits and as such, the status quo should prevail until consensus is achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC) For the nth time, read the policy on how to handle the edits of blocked users! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I know the policy very well. Which is consensus and with discussion on talk page and not repeated reverts (whether you are correct or not). I will report the editwar (all parties) if this does not stop and nothing good will come for any one involved. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Discussion took place on the talk page above, and concluded by RegentsPark. Are you actually making a point? What is it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC) That discussion has no concensus of content, just bickering. No wonder RP closed it. My point is that these reverts are very silly apart from some POV that MBL had been pushing. Why care whether the territory was "conquered" or "gained". India claims the state was acceded to it - if that is to be maintained, Pakistan captured the territory and India "retained" the rest. If that claim has no value, then simply state that the two countries controlled so and so territories at the end of the war. Why edit war instead of discussing it or getting views of editors who are not blocked and form a consensus. What was the problem with the version that was there for years anyway? No one was disputing it until the sock came along? I'm pointing to that (whatever it was, could be restored) - any amend to that would need a consensus. I've not even fully reviewed or endorsed any version but the editwar was obviously not a good sign. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3, going by your (selective) understanding of the policy, I think the easiest way for someone to push a certain POV is (step by step guide as seen by MBL's modus-operandi and your support to his edits): Create a sock account. Disrupt the hell out of the articles (while gaining support from 'friends'). Edit-war your hearts out as you dont care about a block - you are already a sock anyways. Succeed in pushing the POV (a sock account + edit-war/disruptive editing will surely get you there). Then get blocked. But the content (read POV) you added is still there. Your 'friends' then further support your past edits even after you are blocked. Succeed (in pushing the POV). Now Kautilya3, if this is how you want to build Wikipedia, I agree with your debate about keeping MBL's edits. If not, they cant stay. Most importantly, if the edits were so legit, there was no need for them to be added through a sock account. A clean account would have sufficed. But then the editor knew that his tendentious, contentious and POV-edits shall be challenged resulting into edit-wars and reports at ANI and ABPIRA sanctions. So, he decided not to risk his master account for such disruptive editing. Now you by supporting him are also doing the same. BTW, the policy you mention says: ....[Only] obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand, but the presumption in ambiguous cases "should be to revert." Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor' (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC) MBL is not the first editor that socked, nor will he be the last. Wikipedia is a lot bigger than any of us. The policies are there for a good reason. If you want to contest the policy, you need to go and do it on its talk page, not here. I am not proxying or imitating anybody. I am just saying that I will take responsibility for all his content. That means that, if you want to delete any of it, you need to debate it with me. I hope that is clear enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC) When you do go for reintroducing a sock's edits, they are treated as your edits and their previous existence have no value. So per policy, you will need to gain consensus (the foremost policy) for each edit you back up (if no one has reverted a sock's edit, only then there is a silent consensus, which too is the weakest for of consensus). In short, taking responsibility means doing all that you would do if you were to make those edits yourself. I'm not looking for a dispute here and may not be available to continue to reply here but since I did notice the editwar here and eventually commented here, I urge you to get a consensus with those who object or else let the status quo before the sock's edits prevail which in anycase should be the current version per WP:BRD. So again, if you really intend to continue here, best to discuss why those edits should be a part of this article with the reverting editors instead of discussing all this. You should know this well anyway, so that will be the last of it from my end. Feel free to discuss content and gain some good faith if you wish to retain a certain version. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I am very well aware that, when I reinstate an edit, it becomes my edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3, a debate with you, sure. So, here's the procedure: MBL's edits should get reverted, you then before re-adding them as your own edits must get a consensus. Not that you should re-add MBL's content and then ask for a debate. Remember, you being the adding editor, the WP:BURDEN of consensus lies on you. So, debate it out first, and then the content may be added. But you know that already, dont you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) There is no need for any new rules. WP:EVASION is clear enough. You have right to revert sock edits, and I have a right to reinstate them. Then they become my edits, and you can raise policy-based objections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC) New rules? No, there isnt any. It's the same old rule, that's the most basic of all rules: You want to add something, YOU need to get a consensus on it.Anybody or myself reverts a sock's edits, as per policy, that's my reason. Now you want to add it again (this becomes a dispute),so where's your consensus? That's what's missing here. So, please get one before adding the disputed content. But you know that already, dont you?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC) "You want to add something, YOU need to get a consensus on it." Can you show me where you found this rule? -- Kautilya3 (talk) So you want to waste time? If you dont know these basic, what else are you doing here? BTW, this may be helpful WP:CONSENSUS: If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue. Also: When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means (yes, you) "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion. But you dont seem to be doing it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, good. You are dodging my question. That is what I thought you would do. For me to say anything on talk, you need to state an objection first, which you never did. Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what is going on here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC) You are so predictable. Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too. Wikipedia is here to stay.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I think this discussion needs to stop and focus on content. Kautilya3, if you want to give your reasoning on why it was "gained" and not "retained" by india (as I said, it was acceded to india already), feel free to discuss. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Hi TopGun, I have always said that "retained" is the correct wording for India. [13]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is required

meta-level discussion

@Kautilya3 You seem to be a mature editor so I think this will be easy for you to understand. So here goes. Whenever a serial vandal and socker introduces a POV text and tries to disrupt wikipedia with his battleground behavior, he does it knowing that he is going to be caught one day, therefore according to policy the usual remedy is to REVERT ALL SOCKS. I hope the bold text was easy to understand. Now if an editor who is not a sockpuppet, like yourself, wants to reinstate the text he is NOT ALLOWED to by pass editing policies. I would like to make this clear by repeating myself for the sake of clarity, reinstating a socks edits does not mean you can bypass wikipedia guidelines. The policy that you need to follow for adding anything is quite clear. As per WP:BURDEN you need to provide the other editors with suitable evidence that your text should be added. Just because a socking vandal added something does not make it a shoe in, rather it should be reinstated after a lengthy discussion with extra suspicion. So as per norm, I am reverting your insertion and asking that you follow WP:BRD and provide us with some reasons to include your text. As you do not own wikipedia(YET), you're "taking responsibility" for a vandals edits means nothing to me or to anyone else. To us, you just reinstated a very suspicious piece of text, so you will need to provide reasoning as to why you think this should be added. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Hi Freeatlast, I am entirely in agreement that the blocked editor was guilty of edit-warring. But he wasn't the only one edit-warring. In any case, that chapter is over. I don't edit-war. So there should be no problem discussing the issues with me. The reluctance of the involved editors to discuss issues smacks of the same behaviour that got the other editor blocked (repeatedly). So, why are we wanting to go down the same route? The re-revert that you did [14], just deleted references for no apparent reason. And the reference bot has put all of them back. So, I am afraid you are still engaging in the same meaningless edit-warring. Please bring up whatever issues there were, one by one, and we can address them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC) @Kautilya3 I think you did not even read what I wrote. It is upto you to provide reasoning as to why this text should remain in the article. not for me to prove that it "should not". Please read WP:BURDEN FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I am not buying such arguments. Everything should be decided by policy-based discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC) WP:BURDEN is fine. I have already accepted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC) @Kautilya3 I said "you need consensus to re introduce a sockers contributions" You said "I am not buying that argument". Nothing more I can say here I am afraid, no matter how much I try to work with you if you disagree with basic wikipedia policies such as consensus there is nothing we can do. feel free to edit the page as you wish, you clearly think that you own this article and I am sick and tired of editors who think consensus is not required. So GL with editing the page I'll wait for someone else to revert you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Freeatlast, you have been here long enough to know how it works. The issue of consensus arises only after at least one editor has raised a policy-based objection. Nobody is ever asked to seek consensus prior to adding content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Both perspectives

Since it is being stated in the article lead that Pakistan started the war (with no credible source) then I think the best way forward would be to include both perspectives on why and how the Pakistani forces entered the Kashmiri revolution. Victria Schofield presents both perspectives here:

1. REDIRECT [[15]]

India's and Pakistan's, both perspectives are provided.

Note that Victoria Schofield's books on Kashmir are known to be one of the best and most neutral.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How exactly does this impact the issues over which the article is now frozen? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@This is an area of dispute too. And will actually help clear up our understanding of the rest of the war events. I will be back to disussions on Talk page when I wake up. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I am trying to check what the scholars say about the scope of the war. Here is the first: Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Armys Way of War, Oxford University Press, p. 139, ISBN 978-0-19-989271-6

The 1947–1948 war began in October 1947, when thousands of Pakistani tribal lashkars (militia members), with extensive assistance from Pakistan’s new civilian government and elements in the military leadership, invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

An interesting source: Roy, Kaushik; Gates, Scott (28 February 2014), Unconventional Warfare in South Asia: Shadow Warriors and Counterinsurgency, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp. 89–, ISBN 978-1-4724-0579-1

(p. 90) Sardar M. Ibrahim Khan, a Muslim Conference leader, met Colonel Akbar Khan of the Pakistan Army and demanded arms. A Muslim League leader named Mian Iftikharuddin asked Akbar Khan to prepare a contingency plan to acquire Kashmir for Pakistan.... seems like background to the war.

(p. 91) In late October 1947, Pakistan encouraged the tribesmen (Mohamand, Waziris, Mashuds and Afridis) from its NWFP to move into Kashmir....

The source doesn't say when the war begins, but is describing the militarily significant events. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Having consulted several sources, I am of the opinion that it is a mistake to draw the line at the tribal invasion. The antecedents of the tribal invasion have full bearing on the "war" that followed. I would be quite happy to extend the scope of the article to all the conflicts that have followed from June 1947 onwards, when the decision to partition India was taken. I am also happy for both Indian and Pakistani sources to be included as long as they satisfy the requirements of WP:HISTRS.

It is not clear what bearing the Jammu massacres have had on the war. I will create a new article on the Jammu massacres, something I have been wanting to do for a long time, and then we can summarise it here as necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Snedden's work

@Kautilya3

I invite you to review my changes to this article. If you are unable to find my references please tell me and I will link them up here. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning revert

MBlaze Lightning reverted some of the new material added recently. I don't agree with his rationale about Christopher Snedden, who is a perfectly reliable source, but he has a point that this is undue here. I do intend to add a section on the Poonch uprising in the Kashmir conflict page, that is where it should be discussed. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 certainly began with the Pashtun invasion. What happened earlier is merely background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

meta-level discussions

Kautilya3 Yes, this can be added in Kashmir Conflict page but not here. We should avoid WP:UNDUE Ofcourse. And, another reason why i removed that refrence was because given ref itself says, Christopher Snedden has relied on primary documents, interviews, etc. Feel free to add this in Kashmir Conflict page. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet There is no prohibition against scholars relying on primary sources. We are prohibited, not them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC) @Kautilya3: Ok, I didn't know that. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC) MBlaze you pretend to dont know many things. Anyways, how is this undue? Just like you like to add content related to sub-topic of Bangladesh War to all other articles, you dont to seem find that undue? First you try to rubbish the source, which was indeed reliable, then you say it was undue, and now you also say that it is POV? A clear and concise case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well, it is partly my fault. Talha Zubair asked me to review it quite some time ago, but it slipped off my radar. But the first sentence did indeed stick out. The Poonch uprising can be regarded as the beginning of the "Kashmir conflict," but certainly not the Indo-Pakistani war. We should resist putting everything in every article. It becomes impossible to maintain the content that way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Per WP:UNDUE, The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Pro-Pakistan revolt of Muslim population in Poonch, "massacres of Muslims in the eastern districts of Jammu." Is indeed WP:UNDUE here. And use of word like Which is India's claim is indeed POV. I'm getting tired of explaining this, since it's something which is blatantly obvious. Please don't put that crap into the article again. You are just refusing to get it. Or pretending not to get it. Stop WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT MBlaze Lightning -talk! 15:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet In the same section Following the Muslim revolution in the Poonch and Mirpur area and Pakistani backed Pashtun tribal intervention from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa aimed at supporting the revolution, the Maharaja asked for Indian military assistance. is not undue, but providing context to the Muslim revolution is undue?? I think the above sentence, the way it has been framed is rather Indian POV. So stop pushing WP:POV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 15:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, it is undue. If the Maharaja faced a revolution, it isn't India/Pakistan issue, even though there is considerable evidence that the revolution was instigated by Pakistan. But, at least, India wasn't involved. Christopher Snedden's view has been criticised by scholars. See Christopher Snedden. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Are we discussing who instigated what? No sir, we are discussing the mention of whether the revolt should added or not. You want to further add about how or who caused it, we can discuss that in another section. So, let's concentrate at the matter at hand. Second, if a mention of how Bangalis revolted against the State of Pakistan be made in all and every Bangladesh War related article, and it's not considered undue in the interest of providing 'context' and on the basis of being cited from RS (albeit the source being criticized - every researchers/writer has been criticized by one side or the other, that's the concept of research), I dont see why cant this revolt and massacre be included here, and is being considered undue? —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Well, TripWire, if I try to find out what interest you have in the Poonch revolt, you are nowhere to be found in articles like Azad Kashmir, History of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, Christopher Snedden, G. K. Reddy, or even Kashmir conflict. In fact, it is hard to find any content you have added anywhere. In fact, it doesn't appear that you are here to build a Wikipedia, but rather you are here to obstruct those who do. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously by Wikipedians, I would advise you to first prove yourself by producing some content in areas you claim expertise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Please quit the personal attacks. And sorry if I missed the memo which required me to be participating in each and every article quoted by you to be able to edit the current one. You should stop worrying about 'what interest I have where' and concentrate more at the matter at hand, which I have already posted above. You rather see to that instead of discussing me as a person. BTW, you exactly know which content I have produced as you are almost every where in conflict with me on the related pages, and no, I dont know about the areas I claimed expertise in, would you be kind enough to highlight the same to me, as it seems you know quite an awful lot about me. Coming back to the issue at hand, which you have tried to divert attention from; Pushtun uprising, as you have agreed, led to the the 1947-48 war, but you dont want to include the same in the article? You have been championing Bangladesh War articles and been supporting additions of all sorta, and also supported replicating the same content (which you didnt consider Undue) to almost all Bangladesh War related articles. When pointed out that it was indeed undue, you were nowhere to be seen, however here you are already leading the charge. Whois disrupting this encyclopedia? You want to add Punch revolt to Kashmir Conflict, sure, we'll discuss that there, but a synopsis of the same in this article wont hurt at all, unless you want to push the Indian POV already present. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I am not diverting anything. I have answered your objection point blank by saying that "the Christopher Snedden's view has been criticised by scholars. See Christopher Snedden." There is no evidence that you saw it and understood what is meant by my response. As per WP:NPOV, we write what is scholarly consensus, not your opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I guess you missed my reply to your comment? We can only proceed further once you pay attention.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Your response doesn't explain why you reinstated the Christopher Snedden reference this morning [16]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC) You are not paying attention. The edit-summary that I wrote while doing it i.e. Rv content removed by giving a misleading edit-summary and the additional explanation I gave should have sufficed, but then you are not helping.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, the deletion of G.K.Reddy reference as well as Christopher Snedden reference (both of which you mentioned there) are part of copy-editing, for different reasons. But the factual content was not removed. Whenever any new content is added, any concerned editor can edit it or challenge it. If there is a disagreement between the two editors concerned, then the others can chip in. But you started an edit-war this morning, which led to the article getting frozen. I am afraid your interference here is unwanted. All that you are doing is to inflame passions on all sides without contributing anything of your own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC) You need to explain: How removal of sourced content under the garb of copy-editing is part of copy-editing? How, I by reverting your contentious edit, started an edit-war when Mblaze despite being on 1RR with your support is already tendentiously pushing POV, both by adding controversial content, and removing sourced one? This is irrespective of the fact that Mblaze who was sanctioned 1RR for edit-warring on similar pages is the only contentious editor on this article. Dont take my word for it, just go through the adjectives describing his edits at this talk-page alone. Lastly, I keep this page and others related to it on my watchlist, and I dont need your permission to participate here when I see a tendentious editor hell-bent on converting Wikipedia into an Indian propaganda website. BTW, I didnt see that you have contributed anything to these articles other than leading the charge and encouraging contentious editors by supporting them on talk-pages, everywhere. And you accuse me of all this while you supported a sockpuppet??—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Sourced content (Verifiability) does not guarantee inclusion, says WP:V. These are of course not the subtleties that you have ever understood. And, I have never supported MBlaze. I have reverted him and gave him an edit-warring warning. These are again not subtleties you have ever understood. I am here because TalhaZubairButt invited me to review his new content, and the section in question is a summary of Kashmir conflict that I have extensively worked on. Again, this is completely outside your knowledge or expertise. So, just keep off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC) We can proceed further once you learn to stop personal attacks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Content removed by misleading edit summary"

@TripWire: In this revert, revert, you call it misleading edit summary.

• The Christopher Snedden attribution does not belong in the lead. In fact, it doesn't even say anything about the "war" between India and Pakistan. (I mentioned that above.)
• G.K.Reddy's testimony is unnecessary because it is not contested that massacres took place in Jammu. One man's testimony is undue. Again this is not part of the "war." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not that involved in this portion but the revolt was a catalyst to the war you have to be daft to think it played no part in conflict it was the major reason why he chose Hindu India for accession out of fear of a Muslim revolt how can you not realise that? 5.65.190.98 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

meta-level discussion

Kautilya the source does mention the conflict please read again when your less angry. It is not acceptable that a source should be removed just because it does not fit your Indian narrative. 5.65.190.98 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC) The revolt has not been removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Your edit summary says "copy-edit", which you indeed carried out, but in its garb, also removed following content, which was being discussed: One of India's pre-eminent journalists, G. K. Reddy, witnessed the mass killings of Muslims in Jammu's eastern districts. (this had nothing to do with the current discussion) According to Australian academic Christopher Snedden, the pro-Pakistan revolt of Poonch's local Muslim population against the Maharajah was the start of the conflict, rather than the tribal invasion of the state (which is India's claim).—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 10:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC) I have removed some Blatant POV and UNDUE Weight contents. TripWire is intentionally pushing his point of view! Nobody can win over with baseless comments. TBZ addition is also based on Cherry Picked sources. Why is he adding The Hindu instead of Snedden book source to prove "it is India's claim? when he is atrributing to Christopher Snedden? You are supposed to add snedden refrence if you are atrributing him. I see, He is adding Gilgit muslims wanted to join pakistan and atrributing to Snedden but in the same line it is also written, But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. Why ignoring it, then? Double Standard? And do not remove sourced contents i added in the Operation Bison Section as you did here. Respect WP:UNDUE, Stick to NPOV and STOP WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT & WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 11:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet @MBlaze Lightning: Sorry but the massacres of Jammu Muslims is definitely not UNDUE here. It was the catalyst of the violent conflict between the Muslim rebels and the Maharajah. Read Victoria Schofield's work. According to her, Pakistan's justification for military involvement in Kashmir was to stop the stem of Kashmiri Muslim refugees and also to make sure that the Indian Army did not threaten Pakistan's borders. I agreee with @Tripwire, if Bengali rebellions can be mentioned on every page to do with the war, so should the massacre of Jammu's Muslims and the pro-pakistan rebellion in Poonch etc. Also for your question about the pro-Indian sentiment in the Valley, then that isn't relevant to the START of the conflict which was basically the anti-Maharajah rebellion in Poonch and the massacres of Jammu. Valley's populace played a limited role compared to Poonch, Jammu and Gilgit's population. TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC) You need to understand, what is WP:DUE and what is WP:UNDUE. Adding an entire section on muslim massacre is blatant WP:UNDUE. here. In addition, Your edits relies on Cherry picked sources. You are also mis-presenting sources to suit your own point of view. I have corrected and shortened your edits to a manageable size (click here). You are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopaedic standards, then they will had to be removed. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet

@MBlaze Lightning: Please explain how exactly the massacre of Jammu's Muslims is UNDE to include here? I am familiar with the rules of DUE and UNDUE. That massacre instigated the anti-Maharajah conflict. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITTalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

@TripWire and MBlaze Lightning: Talha Zubair asked me to review his new content quite a while ago, which I am doing and I will continue to do. Your reverts in interim are interfering in the process. If you proceed in this way, the page will get protected as it happened on the other pages. I request you to voice your concerns here, and not interfere with the article text. These issues cannot be settled by edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Will this protection apply to other sections of the text? I had way back inserted a simple statement about General Thapa's surrender of Skardu to Pakistani Army and now it seems it has been expanded upon (probably by MBlaze). I also want to further expand on that section. That section should be left open. Its not disputed yet.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

meta-level discussion

@TalhaZubairButt: You are blatantly mis-presenting sources and picking out a particular statement from the sources. Yes, I have expanded it to counter your POV additions per WP:BALANCE. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet @MBlaze: Keep your accusations to yourself. I used a different source to you which gave the simple statement that General Thapa surrendered Skardu. If you have used another source to add extra info then rest assured I will also use another source to add more info abt the same event. And remove your Kashmir Valley people wanting to be India reference. YOU need to get consensus for it. IMO it is WP:UNDUE because the valley population had no role to play during the Poonch uprising. Anything, if at all, Valley related happened then it happened after the tribal invasion.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Yes, I am requesting all parties to discuss objections on the talk page instead of reverting. No exceptions. IPs included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC) If you would be familiar with the rules, then you wouldn't have to say, how it is UNDUE here. And, lol another lie coming from you? You used Khanna Meera: In a State of Violent Peace: Voices from the Kashmir Valley. source to support On 14th August Indian General Sher Jung Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army. While my addition is based on the same source, Thapa held the Skardu with hardly 250 men for whole six long months without any reinforcement and replenishment. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet @MBlaze Lightning: I also used this source about Skardu surrender: Barua, Pradeep (2005). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 9780803213449. REDIRECT [[17]] This one said Indian army surrendered. Thats the main source I read and used.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC) And how this is UNDUE here? It's you who need to gain consensus for your edits. You are mis-presenting sources and adding only a particular statement from the source. My this addition But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. is based on the same snedden reference. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet @MBlaze Lightning: Yes I believe it is WP:UNDUE. Not because its false. But because it doesn't fit in this section. Poonch and Gilgit revolted and were the epicentre of the anti-Maharajah rebellion, so it makes sense to have their pro-Pakistan sentiment there. However the Kashmir Valley people were largely silent during this phase. However if you want to mention them as part of the resistance to the tribals which happened later later on then feel free to include their 'pro-India' (actually pro-Sheikh Abdullah) sentiment.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Actually your entire edit is UNDUE on this page. Given that, This is an article on War which was initiated by the pakistan armed rebels. The thing you are trying to add is thing to be discussed in the Kashmir Conflict page. It is mentioned in the same snedden reference which you added in the article, just below the Gilgit muslim wanted to join pakistan. So your objections are nothing but WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And nop. You added, On 14th August Indian General Sher Jung Thapa had to surrender Skardu to the Pakistani Army.[52] and raiders after a year long siege.[53] while ref 52 is Khanna Meera source: In a State of Violent Peace: Voices from the Kashmir Valley. while my addition is based on the same source. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet MBlaze, I think we have already been through this. The Muslims revolt was the casus beli of the 1947-48 war, how can it be undue? Just because you say so? The problem here is that any and each of the edits made on this article on any other Indo-Pak War related articles, which does not conform to the Indian POV become either WP:UNDUE, WP:POV or disruptive editing for you. It is now clear that you not here to build Wikipedia. Like I have said earlier, if you can add the revolt by Banglis against the State of Pakistan in ALL Bangladesh War related articles, which ultimately led to the Bangladesh War of Liberation, how on the earth can you, in the same breath not allow the revolt by Muslims in Kashmir which led to the 1947-48 War, is beyond anyone's comprehension. You can add stale info by copy/pasting pictures from one Bangladesh article to another Bangladesh article and vice versa, but dont find that undue. However, some fresh info which presents new facts, and is sourced makes you throw WP:UNDUE at just everyone not agreeing with your reverts! —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC) MBlazeLightening, a small glance at this talk page tells me that it is alone you who are the reason of the recent edit-war and the subsequent page protection. Most of the vocabulary you use here starts from WP:UNDUE and ends at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with WP:POV being interspersed in between the two. I suggest, unless you go through these polices, there is no use of engaging you here, as it would be a clear case of WP:SNOWBALL. Kutaliya3 on the other hand is doing a much better job in helping all of us reaching a consensus.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Judging by your response, It is certain that you have nothing smart to say. Here on WIkipedia, we go by what Reliable refrences say, not by the whims of one individual. WP:UNDUE is the classic policy which applies here. Given that the article is on war between India and Pakistan which certainly began with the Pakistan back militias and irregular forces invasion. Adding an entire section for muslim massacre in Jammu is blatant UNDUE, indeed. Unlike you, I don't do blatant reverts without any valid reason. There was a pure case of source-mispresenting and Cherry-picking in TBZ additions. I shortened it and corrected it in accordance with the given source, An Indian journalist G. K. Reddy witnessed the communal killings of Muslims in the Hindu Dominated Jammu region can be seen here. while in the same source, It is also written, the Hindus in the Kashmir Valley remained safe and protected. (Classic case of WP:CHERRYPICKING). Again, I corrected and shortened TBZ addition According to Australian academic Christopher Snedden, There was also an anti-Maharajah uprising in Gilgit, which showed that the people of Gilgit wanted to become a part of Pakistan. While it is written in the same snedden source just below the people of Gilgit wanted to become a part of Pakistan.; But many of the Kashmiris in Kashmir Valley led by Sheikh Abdullah preferred India. (Another classic case of WP:CHERRYPICKING and after TBZs objections, I will say, WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And, Let me reply to your continuous baseless allegations. It is you who initiated unnecessary and unwanted edit war by doing blatant back to back reverts (this & this. You are supposed to follow WP:BRD, which you are clearly not doing. You do not intiate talk page discussion but do reverts. Why? Your behaviour is suicidial in itself because of your persistent WP:DE from past many days on Indo-Pakistani-Bangladesh related articles ([18], [19]. You were supposed to give reason for your blatant reverts here but now it is certain that you use Wikipedia as a platform for your POV pushing and that anything which goes against it shall be reverted by you with no valid reason whatsoever? In the name of restoring your POV version, You removed sourced contents from the Operation Bison section and also reverted minor corrections i did for no reason at all. If you continue with your Disprupting Editing, most probably You will meet the same fate as FLCC. Kautilya said right, that you have no contributions to these articles including Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, You do try to obstruct editors doing productive contributions and specially to those who are against your point of view. You are probably one of those handful of editors who have content disputes with so many editors on ARBIPA covered articles. If you don't respect Wikipedia policy, them I'm supposed to revert you. The primary reason, behind the edit wars constantly flare up on these articles is because you and some of your buddies just can't stop beating WP:DEADHORSE and your way of engagement is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're complaints boil down to "why won't they let me push my pov in peace! That's so unjustice!" which is why this keeps coming up again and again. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet Anyone glancing at the section-headings at this talk-page will know who is bent on destroying this article in particular and wikipedia in general. BTW, you need not add fake hyperlinks to support your personal attacks. And just to give you and idea, let's say, if your CopyVio edit will not be reverted, it will destroy this article. I am just trying to follow Wiki's policies.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Snedden

Too much space was wasted above on meta-level discussions rather than anything to do with the Christopher Snedden source. To get back to the topic, the newspaper review cited in the article calls the book "alternative interpretation of history." The key academic review of the book cited in the Christopher Snedden article calls it a "new spin" and mentions that Snedden ignores a large part of the evidence. Satish Kumar disagrees that an internal revolt in the State by itself cannot internationalise the dispute. All these assessments indicate that Snedden is putting forward new theories which go against the mainstream views. So this is in the nature of a WP:PRIMARY source.

My own assessment is that the book is primarily on the history of Azad Kashmir (The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir). It is based on the research carried out in Muzaffarabad, according to the author (see Acknowledgements, page xi). Indian sources and British sources are mostly ignored by the author. For these reasons, this book gives a partial view of the 1947 events, and the summative judgements made in it are WP:UNDUE for our article. We are required to represent the scholarly consensus, not a single author's views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Change of terminology

@MalikAttaRasool: You have changed "Indo-Pakistani" to "Indo-Pak", which introduces change of terminology from the page title. This should not be done.

• I am also not sure why you think this change is needed. What is wrong with "Pakistani"?
• As far as I know, "Pak" is rarely used as an abbreviation in scholarly sources, and almost never in western sources.
• Whatever term is used for this page's title should also be used for all other articles of the same kind. So this needs considerable discussion and consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3

Though Pakistani is a good world but Indo- Pakistani is wrong combination. No scholar has ever used it like this. Indo is short word for India and Pak a short world for Pakistan. So the correct combination is Indo-Pak. May I quote scholarly work of few authors.

Chari, P. R. (1995). Indo-Pak Nuclear Standoff, the Role of the United States. Manohar Publishers.

Bindra, Sukhawant Singh. Indo-Pak Relations: Tashkent to Simla Agreement. Deep & Deep Publications, 1981.

Sundarji, Krishnaswami. Blind Men of Hindoostan: Indo-Pak Nuclear War. UBS Publishers Distributors (P), Limited, 1993.

Kalra, Virinder S., and Navtej Purewal. "The Strut of the Peacock: Partition, Travel and the Indo-Pak Border." (1999).

As a logical person, I am sure, you will appreciate the correction. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No, "Indo-" is not a short form. It is an adjective, meaning "Indian." Probably comes from Greek or Latin and used in English. "Pak-" is similarly used as an adjective, but only in the subcontinent, not in standard English. I am afraid very few English speakers would know what it means. Some even worry that it might be a derogatory term. So I would recommend against it. We would need a wider consultation to introduce the term here. I don't think it is worth the trouble. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kautalia do I need to quote the work of western scholars to convince you that how the world is used? Reddy, C. Rammanohar. "Indo–Pak defence spending." S Asian J (2005). Gehlot, N. S., and Anu Satsangi. Indo-Pak Relations: Twists and Turns from Partition to Agra Summit and Beyond. Deep and Deep Publications, 2004. Kalis, Naseer Ahmed, and Shaheen Showkat Dar. "Geo-political Significance of Kashmir: An overview of Indo-Pak Relations." IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science. I am sure you are convinced for correct usage of Indo-Pak. So please relax. any one who understand Indo will surely know Pak. let us not mislead our youngsters by incorrect use of terms. I call upon author of article to correct the title. MalikAttaRasool (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

British officers

In this edit, I have added the British commanding officers of both the Indian and Pakistani armies, with their allegiance noted as the British Indian army. The reason for this was subsequently explained in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Partition of India section.

Since then, a number of IP edits attempted to change their allegiance variously to "Pakistan" or "United Kingdom". These are wrong. The officers were the officers of the British Indian army who stayed on to serve the Indian/Pakistani armies as a service to the newly formed dominions. They reported to the Supreme Commander Claude Auchinleck, who in turn reported to the Joint Defence Council of the two dominions as well as the British cabinet. In Auchinleck's words, British officers could not be forced or ordered by the Indian Dominion governments to take actions that would be repugnant to their code of behaviour as officers or to their allegiance to the King. So, it is not proper to regard them as members of the Indian/Pakistani armies. Neither did the officers take orders from the British army. After they returned to Britain, some of them were absorbed into the British army. However, they were not members of the British army when they were in the subcontinent.

If the IP's continue to alter the affiliations without explanations or discussion, I will ask for the article to be semi-protected. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912114721/http://www.princeton.edu/~jns/publications/Understanding%20Support%20for%20Islamist%20Militancy.pdf to https://www.princeton.edu/~jns/publications/Understanding%20Support%20for%20Islamist%20Militancy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318174203/http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/defence-of-srinagar-1947/ to https://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/defence-of-srinagar-1947/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sack of Baramula

Does the three day sack of Baramula deserve it's own section? The suffering of the people of Baramula for three days bought time for Indian Army forces to reinforce Srinigar. --Patbahn (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are right. We need a proper section on the tribal invasion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree--DBigXray 16:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The first photo is wrong

The photo titled "Indian soldiers during the 1947–1948 war." is from WW1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 02:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See https://web.archive.org/web/20110405210142/http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/FormTemplete/frmTempSimple.aspx?MnId=BfMpdR9l1kE=&ParentID=a2GSpnDbruI= -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, It is wrong. The uniforms, kit and equipment is WWI Indian Army issue. I am looking for more evidence and shall revert shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperov (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Head of State during the war

It is important to note that George VI was the head of both the Dominions during the war (a rare occurence in history), and thus the ex-Raj officials and newly appointed Governors-General all were fighting against each other (trying not to give the upper hand to the other party). Please add George VI as one of the belligerents (as head of state, with the Union Jack flag) in the infobox on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.69.241.69 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Operation Eraze and Operation Snipe Subset

In June 1948, Brigadier Rajendra Singh, led the Ist Grenadiers, accompanied by the 2/4 Gurkha and captured Gurez. 1n 1949 Brigadier Rajendra Singh was the military administrator of Jammu and Kashmir for 2 years. Operation Snipe involves a mountain terrain warfare going up and through the Vijji Galli in Kashmir and this is a subset of Operation Eraze which leads to the capture of Gurez. The Operation Eraze continued to control the Zojilla Pass and some other critical passes.Φ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockbuddha (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)