Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Indian Victory??

The 1947-1948 Indo-Pakistani War is not an official Indian victory. The Indian objective was to repulse the 20 lashkar invasion of Kashmir and reenforce administration in the Gilgit Agency & areas like what is now AJK. Indja failed in this, just as Pakistan failed in securing all of Kashmir. This page recently stated a UN-mandates ceasefire, why change it now? The bias here is obvious. Same with how pages like the Rajasthan Front (Pakistani victory) was deleted. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Izaan Iqbal, thank you for using the talk page to air your concern about the changes that have been introduced to the article. My observation here is that critiquing a topic of historical interest is the preserve of scholars. And where they remark in the affirmative that one side had better success at accomplishing the objectives it had set out to accomplish, Wikipedia naturally has to reflect the same. That's how this encyclopedia is written. In this case, reliable sources were furnished and affixed next to the information. So the only challenge to it should come from reliable sources as well. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, it is a scholarly agreement that the First Kashmir War was a ceasefire, and there was no victor. The Indian government under Prime Minister Nehru, did not push the initiative of declaring Major William General's accession to Pakistan as illegal. The push by those such as Mountbatten & Patel to expel Pakistani forces out of Kashmir did not succeed. Hence, no side was a victor in this war. The Karachi Agreement (1949) enforces such, leaving the choice of Kashmir to a referendum. There has been a recent surge of bias, per-say, favoring Indian perspectives on Indo-Pakistani conflicts. As I stated earlier, the Rajasthan Front article was deleted, the Rann of Kutch conflict was changed from a Pakistani victory to a ceasefire, however Pakistan was in a favorable position by securing the necessary posts to apply pressure on India. But since Harold Wilson negotiated a ceasefire, thus changing the result to a simple "ceasefire", why isn't that logic applied here? Hence, I request the article return to the result being a UN-mandated ceasefire. Izaan Iqbal (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned by this edit by Capitals00 that changed the result parameter to Indian victory. I would note that it was previously United Nations-mediated ceasefire. The previous entry against the result parameter did not comply with MOS:MIL nor does retaining it as a dot point in the present version. What is written (who won) should reflect the consensus of good quality (academic) independent secondary sources. It should also reflect the body of the article (eg the Aftermath section). It doesn't. There are three sources cited to the result. The third source (K. Shoup) could best be described as a text book and consequently a WP:TERTIARY source. The second source (Jaffrelot) fails verification in that it is not saying that India won. It is detailing the consequences for China if there was an Indian victory in Kashmir. Wayne Ayres Wilcox is reasonably a source we can rely on but one source does not make a consensus among scholars (plural). While I have not attempted a search of sources, it would surprise me if the consensus of academic sources was not so unequivocal as Wilcox and generally more circumspect. Yes, we can add Wilcox to the Aftermath section but we need to poll other sources on this question and present the various views with appropriate weight. I would forecast that the result will be less than conclusive and suggest that the See Aftermath section will be the most appropriate of the permitted responses (per MOS:MIL) to be used in this particular case. The sources cited are not sufficient to claim an Indian victory at this time. In the mean time, I have changed this to See Aftermath section pending further discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: "That war represented a defeat for Pakistan. Hoping to conquer Kashmir, the Pakistani leaders had sent their best troops into battle against the Indian army. Military victory proved beyond the means of the smaller state, though it was by the mid - 1960s a militaristic regime."[1] By cold war historian Daniel R. Brower.

Military expert Praveen Swami has described how Pakistan failed,[2] and it was a "defeat of Pakistan in 1947-1948" war.[3]

"Pakistan lost the war. There was a handful of regular army officers sprinkled among the tribesmen, whose military campaign disintegrated into orgy of looting and plundering." By Kathy Gannon.[4]

"Pakistan lost all three wars, which is a major source of humiliation for Pakistanis. The first war (1947-1948) was fought over Kashmir, a predominately Muslim region that remained in India when India was portioned into two states. The war failed to secure Pakistan's sovereignty over the region as it left the majority of it under India."[5] By Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan.

"Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir." By Farzana Shaikh, published by Oxford University Press with regards to Rawalpindi conspiracy.[6]

Talat Ahmed agrees with the above source that it "was based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir".[7]

Given all these thoroughly reliable sources, I have expanded the aftermath section and will change the infobox to support Indian victory. Capitals00 (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Indian victory?

Note this sub-section was moved here per this edit in order to keep the discussion centralised in one section. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I remember the result was never "Indian victory" and it is changed recently by of course the Indians, Pakistan captured nearly 85,000 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir and the result is "Indian victory"? Is this a joke? Wasn't this war inconclusive as neither Pakistan was able to completely capture the state nor India recaptured the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan. 182.181.156.17 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Who told you India controlled the whole Jammu and Kashmir that it must have "recaptured the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan" in order to win the war? When India entered in the war, a huge portion was already captured by Pakistani tribesmen. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The war was conclusive. Jammu and Kashmir ceased to be an independent country. India and Pakistan partitioned the state. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• My previous post was to say that there should be an objective review of the sources regarding the result and that the aftermath section should summarise such a review. The result of this suggestion was to find and cite multiple sources for claiming the result in the infobox to be an Indian victory even though the war was terminated by a UN cease fire. In summary, these would assert the victory because Pakistan had not captured all of K&J. We now have a link to Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field which discusses not just that war but also the result of this war. It presents several sources that would assert the result here was inconclusive. Only presenting sources that support one particular view is not neutral. From the sources, India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes. Consequently, India petitioned the UN to mediate a ceasefire. Pakistan agreed on the basis that a plebiscite was a condition of the ceasefire. Pakistan agreed to several mediated proposals for a plebiscite but these were stonewalled by India. Ultimately, the plebiscite has not been implemented. The fate of K&J has not been resolved between the two countries. It has remained a simmering point of contention between the two countries and a cause of subsequent wars over the territory.

I have been intending to amend the aftermath to reflect this but I have a bit much on my plate at the moment. Anybody else is welcome to take up the task. Looking at the sources, there is clearly more to this than can be reasonably represented as being an Indian victory. With an adequate aftermath section, MOS:MIL would indicate that the result should be see Aftermath. In the mean time, I would suggest that the status quo (ie UN ceasefire) might be best even though it is not supported by MOS:MIL. It is at least, undisputable and supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A reasonable proposition is that the article should continue to say "UN-Mandated Ceasefire" as per the scholarly consensus but should also reference "See Aftermath" as you proposed to show the dominance one side held over the other. This is better than coming to a highly disputed conclusion that one side had total victory over the other. MrGreen1163 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Cannot do that. See my comments above. Capitals00 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you can do that, unless you straight up deny the UN-mandated ceasefire. This is an incredibly reasonable proposition as to resolve this due to this debate raging on ever since you edited this page. Last time I checked the scholarly consensus of a widely researched war just doesn't change 75 years later with cherrypicked elements of a minority opinions to for some reason show this as the majority scholarly consensus. My proposition is incredibly reasonable as to resolve this issue and to prevent elements of bias in this article, showcasing all assessments of this war. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Victory: an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition." (Oxford Languages)

"Upper hand: have the advantage over someone or something" (Oxford Languages)

There is a clear differential between victory and upper hand. The Indian army did not gain complete victory against the Pakistani army in this war, as evident by their literal failure to secure Gilgit Baltistan and only even having some success on that front by successfully defending Leh. Pakistan also failed to achieve its wanted objectives in areas such as Srinagar and Chamb, but this doesn't warrant an Indian victory. Its evident both sides struggled, and the United Nations mandated a ceasefire before even further escalation in the Spring of 1949 could occur. This is like arguing the War of 1812 was a British victory due to it having the upper hand at the time peace was signed. See MOS:MIL. "Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"." See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Utilizing the upper hand in terms of military losses does not warrant a victory for one side. See WP:Cherrypicking. See WP:NPOV. " If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.". MOS:MIL mandates you to adhere somewhat to my proposal. This is a highly contentious topic with multiple differing opinions, and the denial of the majority scholarly consensus is appalling. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

An official ceasefire should not be translated into "ceasefire" but who had upper hand at the time when the ceasefire was initiated.

Comparison with 1812 war is irrelevant because there was no territorial changed involved in that war between the two main parties (US and UK).

"Victory" is decided by the reliable sources. Do the existing sources support the "victory" parameter in favor of India? They absolutely do. But do you have any sources that describe the outcome as Pakistan's victory? Ratnahastin (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because a few sources state Indian side to have an upper hand during conflict does not mean all sources agree for this outcome. Reading the relevant UN-mediated ceasefire agreement would be useful in this regard. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We go by what sources say and since there was a coup attempt in Pakistan, after the UN intervention, due to Pakistan's defeat in the war, it would make no sense for you to simply rely on the UN intervention. You can find sources describing how this was not a victory for India because we have reliable sources that described how it was a victory for India. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you mean Rawalpindi conspiracy by the coup, then that's speculation by you, because its reason was not "Pakistani defeat" but the acceptance of UN ceasefire by Pakistani government.

Also, in the infobox the mainstream academic views are included, which is that the war was ended by a ceasefire agreement, not by an Indian victory. Even the article notes this to be the cause of the ending of war. India failed its objective of gaining control of whole Kashmir region as well, and thus there is no reason to change the outcome on the basis of a few sources, as it violates WP:NPOV. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not my speculation but that is exactly what several scholarly sources stated as discussed above.[8][9] US did not achieve its goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Gulf war but it would never mean that they were not the victor of the war. To say we should ignore these sources only because you are saying otherwise will not happen. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The user who edited the article to an Indian victory has agreed with the assessment that the war was solely a UN-mediated ceasefire. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

See (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Capitals00) MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I only said I am fine with reviewing consensus. I still support adding Indian victory on infobox. Don't falsify my comments. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your sources provide no preview, no quote neither page. Also, where did I draw parallel with Saddam Hussein? This parallel is not even a good one, as the purpose of First Gulf War was not to overthrow Ba'athist regime but to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I can see this saying "Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir." While this is saying, "based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir".[10] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the resolution in the ANI, may you revert the edit to the edit published before Capitals00 on November 10th? The other editor only changed the result not the article content which is not complicit per MOS:INFOBOX. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dispute is only over infobox, not the rest of the content. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No? The whole dispute was over the outcome of this war, which is included in the article. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You should better focus on the result parameter that why it should not mention Indian victory. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That was already decided upon per the resolution as mentioned above. MrGreen1163 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your personal conclusion is WP:OR. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

How so? The user not having consensus is now WP:OR? MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Which "resolution" are you talking about? Consensus is formed with policy based discussion and your objection have no connection with the policy based discussion. Capitals00 (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you yourself not agree on the current result in the article? "Then I don't have any issue with the revert and reviewing the consensus on talk page.". MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not based off of my "personal opinion" considering 7 users have reverted your edit changing the result to an "Indian victory" and the discussions in this talk page objecting such a result, that is consensus. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing the result from an Indian victory to a UN-mediated ceasefire.* MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I said I don't have problem with the revert and "reviewing the consensus on talk page". I never said I don't support removal of Indian victory. Talk about who has sensibly disputed the result parameter until now and you will find nobody has. Capitals00 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The 7 users who reverted your edits are not those who disputed the result parameter? I even originally proposed that under "UN-mediated ceasefire", it should state, "See aftermath", as per MOS:MIL, which is mostly in effect right now. Therefore, I do not see the point of this debate considering the current parameter mostly aligns with MOS:MIL, and you can add "See aftermath" below "UN-mediated ceasefire" as per the original proposition, which showcases India's upper hand at the time of the ceasefire strategically. Thanks. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Siachen conflict also resulted in a ceasefire. It doesn't mean it was not a "victory" for India. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has stretched too long for convenience of uninvolved observers and most of it, dare I say, has strayed off the course to a digression on who reverted whom on what, which isn't helpful. There is a proposal for revising the result to reflect the increased support for Indian success in the war in academic sources. It is not at issue that a UN brokered forced a formal cessation of the war. But reading the sources make it clear that one side had better successes in accomplishing prewar objectives in the military engagement, as the ensuing disproportionate portioning of the erstwhile Kashmir territory between the two belligerents exemplify too. Cinderella157 makes the observation above that "India's entry into K&J was initially successful against the tribal uprising but, on formal involvement of Pakistan's military it was considered that they could not sustain the previous successes." But some of the Indian successes against the Pakistani backed invasion was after the said involvement of the Pakistani forces. The distinction is also not a valid one. Indeed, Pakistan was involved all along. The Pashtun tribesman that warred and descended to rape and plunder had unfettered support from Pakistan. It is the Indian forces that entered the war at a later stage after the Poonch's declaration of independence impelled the maharaja to seek Indian intervention and put pen to paper on the Instrument of Accession. India salvaged Srinagar and progressed further north. The sources do not trivialize this aspect of the war, neither should we by occluding it from the infobox. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Superficial appreciation of sources doesn't make either side a victor. The war was conclusive, India itself went to the UN for a ceasefire. War Wounded (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Kashmir was neither part of India nor Pakistan when the war started. Till the time India came into the scene in the aftermath of Jammu Muslim massacres and Poonch rebellion, the regions that are now known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir had already come under Pakistani control. Little change occurred at frontlines during 1948: Pakistan secured Skardu while India gained control of Kargil and Kashmir Valley. India's objective of gaining control of whole region failed, and so did Pakistan's. This was a stalemate as the previous version stated, and the fact the India was the first to go for UN-mediated ceasefire should not be ignored as well. Even today India controls only roughly half of the Kashmir region. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

India did not went for a ceasefire but for the UN resolution. India had captured Kargil on 25 November. The war continued until the ceasefire was proposed. The first condition was that Pakistan will withdraw its forces, and it was Pakistan who withdrew first. Don't create bogus stories to defy scholarly sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I would ask the editors seeking for the change in outcome to start a separate RFC below instead of edit warring and going into circles. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

But you still haven't provided any scholarly sources to dispute Indian victory, as such your suggestion for RFC fails WP:RFCBEFORE. Ratnahastin (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A previous RFC by user Fowler&fowler on the talk page of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 mentions scholarly sources disputing the result of the First Kashmir War, feel free to look into it. Ukiyology1 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources say anything like "assessment that India won the war is incorrect". You can find many sources which will not mention Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was Indian victory but you will find none which would dispute the fact that India won the war. Same goes for this 1947-1948 war as well.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Starting a RFC for a major change, which cannot be done with a simple talk page discussion, is the way to go for any one with genuine wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. So, it is better for you and other editors disputing the result to either start it or go for dispute resolution. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But where is the "dispute"? Just saying things like "let scholarly sources say what they want but I don't like the war to be treated as Indian victory" cannot be considered as a dispute. It is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources say anything like "assessment that India won the war is incorrect". There are several sources presented at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Result field that describe the result as inconclusive. A link to that discussion was posted on this page on 25 November and was included in my post of 2 December above. They express an opinion that the war was not won by India. There is not a clear consensus in the sources that it was an Indian victory. The sources are divided. Furthermore, there is nuance to why some sources would call this an Indian victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Same can be discovered about just any war. If the war result was inconclusive then why nobody calls it Pakistan's victory but Indian victory? There is a case of differing views among sources which can be found about just any war but there is no specific disagreement over India's victory. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The result parameter is not a binary choice of Indian victory or Pakistani victory. Please see MOS:MIL and the templates documentation. There is specific disagreement over India's victory because there are sources which also call the result inconclusive. WP:NPOV and MOS:MIL is telling us to discuss these views (usually in the aftermath section) and to use the see Aftermath option for the result parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wars end in ceasefire, which is not a big deal but when there is nobody specifically disputing that India won this one then why we should? It is that clear. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong in stating that no source disputes Indian victory. See the sources at previous RFC regarding first and second Kashmir wars[11] which state it to be a stalemate. Clearly we can't put it in the lead when there is no academic consensus over the result. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding on, credible historians and political scientists like Stanley Wolpert and Sumit Ganguly state UN ceasefire to be the cause of ending of war, just like what happened in Tashkent Declaration, not an "Indian victory". India's objective of controlling whole region failed as well.

So, WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour is evident from the conduct of editors who don't give any regard to what majority of academic sources state, and just want to change the result as they like. If these editors still want to continue this, they should do what I have suggested above. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting those sources. First source says "The council also called for a cease-fire in Kashmir, to begin on 1 January 1949". Second source says: "The first part called on the governments of India and Pakistan to agree on a cease-fire within forty days." They are not treating ceasefire as outcome of the war but only stating that it happened. If anything, these sources debunk you previous claim that "India was the first to go for UN-mediated ceasefire". Those who describe the result of the war are often noting that India was the victor, and because India had upper hand at the time of ceasefire. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I said the ceasefire was the cause of ending of war, and these sources state it as such. If you misinterpreted my reply then the fault lies with you.

Neither they "debunk the claim" of India approaching the UN before Pakistan; that's what sources as well as article states. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't get your point either. The first Kashmir war wasn't the only war that ended with an armistice even in its time. Indeed, wars typically end the same way or with some sort of treaty. That doesn't preclude the observers or the scholars from considering the intricacies of the engagement, war events, extent of successes or lack of it, and yes, victory and defeat. And given what we know of tbe war, It is inarguable that India ended the war on a better note. It controlled two-thirds of the princely state of Kashmir and, by extension, 72% of Kashmir's population. When sources bring out that India won it militarily, the infobox should reflect it. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right that most wars end in armistice, but in case of clear victory for either side, the subsequent treaties explicitly acknowledge so. That was not the case in the aftermath of first Kashmir war. UN resolution did not recognize superior military position of India. My point was Pakistan retained what it had captured, as did India. That was not a clear victory for any side. See also 20 or so academic sources which were presented at an earlier RFC regarding 1947 – 48 and 1965 wars and have been linked by Cindrella157. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There was an armistice in the Russo-Georgian War too but the article unequivocally adumbrates the victory of Russian forces without there been an explicit acknowledgement thereof in the agreement. And that is one amongst the many examples that exist. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 did not have within its remit an obligation to critique the results of the Kashmir war. It concerned itself with the larger political dispute over the territory. Pakistan retained a third of Kashmir which it had wrung from the state forces of maharaja and it did not have within it the Vale of Kashmir which it warred over. In contrast, India gained control of the two-thirds or the majority of it which included the Vale of Kashmir it warred over. That itself is exemplifying which of the two ended the war in a position of strength vis-à-vis the other. Additionally, by inviting the UN's attention over the political dispute, it entrenched its legal claim over the entirety of the Kashmir territory. The recurring handwaving to the RfC of the 1965 talk page is unhelpful, for it has no bearing here. Indeed, Wikipedia's entry on the 1965 war enunciates the converging opinions of various scholars on India's upper hand in the war notwithstanding a ceasefire that ended the war. The sources also do not touch on the same things. The first of the lot, Paul, T. V. (2003), India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status notes India's superior war gains before transitioning to a passing mention on the Kashmir dispute which is political in nature. Snedden makes a passing mention on the war in appendix, Sisson writes not even a complete line, Batra touches on the ceasefire aspect in passing. Better quality sources have already been furnished to undergird the idea of Indian victory in the war. And they are also numerous. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In the example you cited, there was a clear territorial loss from one side (Georgian) to another (Russian). Now compare this with the war under discussion. Was Kashmir a part of either side when the war started? Well, the answer is no. Was Pakistan the only side to suffer loss of territory? Again, one has to acknowledge that the region of Baltistan came under Pakistani control only by August 1948 after capture of Skardu, well during the coarse of war. Loss and gain of territories happened on both sides. Also, you are wrong in suggesting that the RFC did not apply on this article. It clearly mentioned that both 1948 and 1965 wars were stalemates. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires separate RFCs for similar topics. If anything, these sources prove that there does not exist any sort of academic consensus for the supposed Indian triumph. Ignoring them and changing stable version on the basis of a few sources is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. As Toddy1 mentioned above, the only agreed result is that the state was partitioned among Pakistan and India. I'm pretty sure you can find many examples too where the result of war was stalemate, not a victory/defeat. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to do your homework before scrawling replies and thereby cluttering the discussion only for the sake of replying. There are no "20 or so" academic sources for gainsaying Indian victory in first Kashmir war you handwave to, nor an RfC as a matter of fact even on the parent subject of 1965 India Pakistan war, much less this. It was a discussion where the OP posted a bunch of passing mention sources throughout the lot for the Kashmir war which remained undiscussed throughout the discussion. But as shown above, none of it is actually sticking. Capitals00 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Vast majority of the academic sources state the war to be a stalemate. In addition to the sources linked by @Cinderella157: I found more than a dozen WP:RS stating first kashmir war to be a stalemate after a little effort, and I'm sure you would have too had you tried to find. It is you who has been invoking a hypothetical consensus since past many months for changing the result. You agreed to obtain the consensus only after your claim was rejected at ANI. As observed by @Fowler&fowler: that is sheer revisionism. If you still disagree and are willing to push this further, held an RFC for it. That will save my and other editors' time from being wasted.

Also, the previous RFC with a now blocked sock was not just a "discussion", it was a standard consensus. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Academic sources don't engage in "revisionism". There was no "RFC" and it involved no "blocked sock". It was indeed just a "discussion" with no validity on this article. Your selective WP:CANVASSING with the hope that someone else will carry over your misleading discussion is nothing but WP:DE. When you don't have any answer against the concerns raised about your misleading claims other than citing a non-existing dispute that solely depends over your WP:IDONTLIKEIT then you are supposed to drop the WP:STICK.Ratnahastin (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should visit it again and find what was the editor consensus there, and who got blocked as sock. Also, you should watch your tone. The two editors pinged are very much involved in the recent discussion regarding undiscussed changes. Your rest of accusations also make little sense, and may well fall under WP:PERSONAL. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What was the editor consensus there, where was the RfC conducted and concluded, and who got blocked as a sock, and what are thier relevance to this discussion, and how do they preclude the discussion here @Sutyarashi? If you're willing to simply rehash your erroneous assertions even after they have been refuted by a number of editors, you need to forswear handwaving and affix the attendant evidence to demonstrate that what you rehash has some underlying substance to it lest your repeated handwaving to a nonexistent RfC and an extraneous "editor consensus" is construed as being in the realm of incomprehension or worse purposeful gaslighting. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The editors agreed on restoring the version which stated the result to be stalemate/inconclusive. Infact, the agreed version remained stable for next four years till Cinderella157 replaced it with See Aftermath section couple a days ago.[12] The sock I was talking about was Aman.Kumar.goel. However, I understand that their sockpuppetry is not directly relevant to the discussion. The relevance is that the sources presented there do call both wars to be stalemate. Though I agree that discussion may not be applicable here.

I hate repeating it over and over again, but we do need a new consensus for changing the stable version here. Helding an RfC would be the best option. Nevertheless, WP:ONUS lies upon you for proving how mainstream academia views the result of war as a clear Indian victory and not a stalemate. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You are free to show us which of the editors "agreed on restoring the (said) version" of this article and when did that take place here. As for the sources "presented there", they have been already considered and found lacking in substance on the Kashmir war or touching on other extraneous aspects of the war, not on the idea of Indian victory in the war. If you now confess that the said discussion or the said user's sock puppetry has no relevance or application to this discussion, you should simply stop harping on it. Repeatedly enjoining us to seek a consensus and assume the onus in the midst of a discussion is belittling, unhelpful and a red-herring. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I have already provided more than enough academic sources describing the war as stalemate, and getting ended by a UN-mediated ceasefire, not an "Indian victory". Given the quality of sources for the supposed Indian victory, it is obvious mainstream view is that the war was a stalemate. I'm willing to spend further time over it only if the discussion proceeds in some constructive way. The many years-old stable version can be changed only by a new consensus, and the editors wishing the result infobox to be changed should really either start RFC or go for dispute resolution. Though I doubt that their efforts are going to be fruitful. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say that again, that wars end in ceasefire, which is not a big deal. Victor is generally the belligerent that gained more in the war. Is there any doubt that India gained less? This is why enough academic sources state India is the victor. The outcome of this war, as noted by few users above is not limited with UN ceasefire but also repercussions such as Rawalpindi conspiracy which makes it clear that the war was a defeat for Pakistan. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No, there does not exist enough academic sources for an Indian victory. Most do call the war to be a stalemate. See sources for stalemate at article. I did not add more sources due to citation overkill. If anything, Indian victory in the war is a minority view.

However, now I agree with you that Infobox should not state ceasefire as result. It should be either replaced with Stalemate or See Aftermath Section. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You're brushing aside other people's views by hook or crook but in a manner that seems perfunctory. You haven't critically engaged with your own sources to evaluate their relevance before handwaving to them. For example, Surinder Mohan is touching on the implications of the political dispute over the Kashmir territory, incurring from the deadlock over the territory, not the notions of victory and defeat in the military engagement. Kennedy's quote has been misrepresented. The quote is part of the assessment of Roy Bucher's report to Nehru at the time of the war, not something Kennedy independently observes. The other sources are hardly more than a one line passing mentions on the Kashmir war, the ilks of which Wikipedia takes a dim view of, especially when better quality sources (Indian victory) have been furnished to us. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:PERSONAL before making claims that I'm brushing aside opinions of other people by hook or crook. It does not really seem that you have bothered to check the sources for the supposed Indian victory before rejecting the references for stalemate, which are by far much more reliable. Kulke & Rothermund nowhere state that India won. New Zealand Defence Quarterly is not reliable enough to be cited. Brozek and Hoontrakul don't even provide complete sentences, and worse, they are not even authoritive enough regarding the 1947 Kashmir war or South Asia in general. You should either focus on improving the references which support that POV, or leave the issue of determining the reliability of the sources for some third party. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

No one has actually cited Kulke & Rothermund in the discussion. So telling you are inaccurate with your assessment is not getting WP:PERSONAL. Reliability of sources is evaluated on dictates of policies, not on personal ideas about authoritativeness, and you should not be telling anyone they should not evaluate your sources.Ratnahastin (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You are a bit off in your reply. I hadn't cited Surinder and Kennedy in the talk page discussion, either. I was talking about the references cited in the Aftermath section. Sure, the reliability of the sources is determined as per WP policies, not our personal ideas. But at the same time one should, if they are really adhering with WP:NPOV, evaluate the references supporting their POV on the same basis at which they reject others.

That's why I told them to either re-evaluate the sources which they think to be high quality enough, or wait for some neutral party to determine the reliability of sources stating the war to be a stalemate or victory in this context.

And I really wish if this pointless discussion had not gotten so prolonged. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems you had added those two sources to aftermath while I was not the one to add Kulke & Rothermond. The sources that I had mentioned can be found above at 07:56, 13 November 2023.

If this discussion is so "pointless" then why did you join it in the first place? Capitals00 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I was evaluating the sources supposed to support to notion of Indian victory in the aftermath section. As for the sources you have provided above, your first source does not specifically deal with the Indo-Pakistani conflicts or the first kashmir war. Praveen Swami is not discussing the 1947 war in depth. Kathy Gannon's book deals with Afghanistan conflict, while Herb & Kaplan's book deals with a general overview of the nationalism across the globe. Even Talat Ahmed and Farzana Shiekh actually discuss Rawalpindi Conspiracy case, not the Kashmir war. Per WP:CONTEXT, we need sources specifically evaluating the war in depth instead of making passing remarks. Indeed, none of these sources analyses the war in detail or even wider Kashmir conflict.

On the other hand, there are sources dealing with Kashmir conflict and Indo-Pakistani wars which state the war to be a stalemate. Sumit Ganguly, Lavoy, Surinder Mohan and Ankit, Rakesh, who actually provide a detailed account of war and Kashmir conflict, consider it a military stalemate. Fair, C. Christine, Gardner, Cheri, Cheema & Cohen, Sprague, Jayanta Kumar Ray and Sisson & Rose are also much more relevant in the South Asian context than Brower, Gannon or Kaplan. Also, given that most of these academic sources are published by university presses, they are likely to be of higher scholarly value.

I called discussion pointless, because there is no academic consensus over the result of the war. There is no reason for consistently disputing the result box. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Praveen Swami has excessively discussed the war, more than your sources put together.[13][14] Same with Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan.[15] Your analysis of the sources is outright misleading. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Herb & Kaplan don't even deal with the Kashmir conflict, and hence are unreliable per WP:CONTEXT. The fact that you consider a single reference more credible than 15 stating otherwise shows that you only want to push a POV regardless of its merit.

Also, you need to stop edit warring. The ANI discussion clearly said to restore the article as it was before the disruption started. You also need to avoid false edit summaries. The statement was not evidently there for years. It was not there before November. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

See the links I have provided instead of repeating yourself. If you haven't read it then read this. They have discussed the war in lengths where as most of your sources are passing mentions. As for my edit summary, it was accurate. When I had read this page last time (before taking Wiki break in September 2021), the lead did say "most neutral assessments agree that India was the victor of the war ".[16] This is also supported by the version from 2017.[17]Ratnahastin (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Indian nationalist revisionism

I have neither the time nor the heart for stooping so low as to acknowledge Indian-nationalist revisionism in this article's lead by opposing it, but you will understand why Wikipedia has become a joke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Grave mistake in Infobox image

I think we're making a grave mistake here as the second image at the infobox is stated as Pakistani troops while multiple sources have stated this image to be of airlift of Indian troops. Should we amend this? Request clarifications over this before someone again makes a mockery of Wikipedia using this (presumed) mistake by the community. TIA Pg 6475 ^TM 15:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pg 6475: From where you have read that this image is about airlift of Indian troops? I see the added URL is not working. Azuredivay (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Troops at Srinagar Airfield

27 October 1947

Official Indian Air Force on X

Indian-Army-landing-in-Kashmir-in-1947

Before Pathan Raids

#Oct27: Delhi Flew 800 ‘Dakota’ Sorties To Srinagar in 15 Days In 1947, says Sinha

Indian Soldiers Land in Srinigar

The First War After Independence – The Saga of Bravery and Sacrifice

Sadly enough, the following article wrongly mentions the image as Pakistani soldiers, citing WP as source, and, ironically the same article shows an image of an Indian Dakota in an another image within it.

A Dark Chapter Of Kashmir’s History: The Day When Pakistan Plundered The ‘Paradise On Earth’

This image is highly popular in Indian culture, and the aircraft in the background is an Indian civilian Dakota. Pg 6475 ^TM 16:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This photograph is in the Indian official history of the war published 1987, History of Operations in Jammu & Kashmir 1947-48, facing page 1. The caption says The First Fly-in. Indian troops landing on Srinagar airfield.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

The page lead make a claim that Numerous analysts state India emerged victorious as it successfully gained the majority of the contested territory meanwhile the aftermath section says that Numerous analysts state that the war ended in a stalemate, with neither side obtaining a clear victory. Can someone fix this obvious conflict?. 103.244.173.34 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring in the lead regarding the outcome

Given the RfC, the current edit warring in the lead is disruptive editing. Discuss it on the page thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

Change the Pakistani casualties to <1,500, as stated in the majority of reliable neutral sources. The current (rather amusingly) exaggerated figure of 20,000 casualties is taken from Indian sources.

Sources:

• Ganguly, S. (1995). Wars without End: The Indo-Pakistani Conflict. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 541, pp.167–178."The best estimate places combined Indian and Pakistani military casualties at 1500" http://www.jstor.org/stable/1048283

• Heitzman and Worden. (1995). India: A Country Study. Federal Research division of the Libary of Congress p.571 "In all, 1500 soldiers died on each side during the war" Solblaze (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

 Not done Already discussed many times on here and [18] (which resulted into RfC on RSN). Ratnahastin (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

::1) These discussions do not mention Ganguly; They are editors giving their own assessments about why the Indian military is more reliable than the Library of Congress country study.

2) Much of these discussions consist of Indian and Pakistani nationalist socks arguing with each other (which were only blocked recently)

3) The RFC on RSN also pertains to the country study, not Ganguly.

4) It is preposterous to brush aside an authority like Ganguly and lend more credibility to a subcontinental military notorious for historical revisionism. Solblaze (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

Really?

Casualties = killed + wounded + missing (including prisoners). The ratio of killed to wounded is often assumed to be 1:3 (though it can vary a lot).

Your quotation from Ganguly says that Indian casualties + Pakistan casualties = 1,500. If that were correct (which seems implausible), and both sides had about equal casualties, if we ignore missing/prisoners, it would mean that the Pakistan Army probably suffered about 188 dead and 563 wounded (i.e. 750 casualties), and the Indian Army about the same.

Your quotation from Heitzman and Worden says that Indian killed = 1,500 and Pakistan killed = 1,500. That would mean that the Pakistan Army probably suffered about 1,500 dead and 4,500 wounded (i.e. roughly 6,000 casualties), and the Indian Army about the same.

A good reliable source for the Indian Army is Praval, Major K.C. (1990). Indian Army after Independence (2 ed.). pp. 76–77. The cost of the 14-month campaign to India was approximately 6,000 casualties: 1,500 killed, 3,500 wounded and 1,000 missing, most of them prisoners of war. Pakistan's casualties were estimated at 20,000, including 6,000 killed.

So a reliable source for the Indian Army says that their casualties were about 6,000, whereas Ganguly suggests about 750. Do you still maintain that Ganguly is a reliable source for casualties?

Regarding Pakistan Army casualties - that is a difficult one. You are right to complain that the number in the infobox is being labelled as a fact, when in reality it is an estimate by the other side. Soviet estimates of German casualties at the Battle of Kursk were about eight times larger than German records indicate. Indian and Pakistan estimates of the other side's casualties/losses were 2.5-3 times larger than the other side gave. So if we take the Indian Army's estimate of Pakistan Army casualties and divide by three that gives 6,667 - it suggests that Pakistan Army casualties might have been about the same as Indian Army casualties. i.e. what Heitzman and Worden say about Pakistan dead is plausible.

We either need to (1) correctly label the figures in the infobox for Pakistan Army casualties as "Indian estimates", or (2) delete them, or (3) use reliable Pakistan sources (and the quotation you gave suggests that Ganguly is not reliable for casualties).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Nuance of various figures should be discussed in the body of the article. The infobox should be a summary of key facts. If there is no clear consensus in sources, there is nuance to figures or this cannot be simply summarised, it should be omitted. It is an optional parameter and the TOC directs the reader to the appropriate section of the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is unanimous agreement over the figures mentioned on infobox. See the source no. 21. It mentions a 2014 article from a well-established Pakistani outlet that also supports the cited figures. This article has been cited by the scholars too.[19] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The figures for Pakistan casualties in the infobox are misrepresented. Reliable sources such as Praval and the Official History make it clear that they were an Indian estimate of Pakistan casualties.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is unanimous agreement among Indian sources.

I can't believe you brush aside an authority like Ganguly while treating a deleted news article like the word of god in the same breath. Please take a look at and fully understand WP:HISTRS before commenting on the matter. Solblaze (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Solblaze: The source that Professor Sumit Ganguly used for his implausible claim that "The best estimate places combined Indian and Pakistani military casualties at 1500." was Singer, J. David; Small, Melvin (1972). The Wages of War 1816-1965: A Statistical Handbook. New York: John Wiley.. Google books only allows snippet view, so it is difficult to check the source cited by Professor Ganguly. I have ordered a copy of The Wages of War , it will take 3-4 weeks to arrive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)