Talk:Battle of Chawinda

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

Result Pakistan victory Abdul alim mia (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the change you'd like to make. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This RfC should answer that.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The sources cited, which are of good quality, seem clear that the result was inconclusive. Unless some other sources of equal quality come along, no revision is warranted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The Battle of Chawinda was the final engagement in the Second Kashmir War. The sources rightly say that the Second Kashmir War was inconclusive -- but the Battle of Chawinda wasn't inconclusive. As demonstrated in the RfC that I personally closed six years ago, the sources say that the Battle of Chawinda was a Pakistani victory. The RfC outcome was challenged and confirmed here. Please allow it to be implemented.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not possible until this more recent consensus has been overturned. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aman.kumar.goel. I didn't know that there was discussion before the result field was changed. The current sources are certainly much better than the old ones, they are newer and broader, and therefore more neutral. In response to S Marshall, these sources are indeed saying that the result of Battle of Chawinda was a draw, not that the overall war was a draw.

Honestly, I don't know how scholars decide the wins or losses. Pakistan retained Chawinda. In that sense, it had won. But is that all there is to it? Indians certainly knew that whatever territory they won, they would eventually have to give back. And Chawinda is not such an important piece of territory that it would make a difference for anything. But the Indians got Pakistan (a) to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, and (b) to agree to a truce without any concessions on Kashmir. In that sense, it seems to me that India achieved whatever it was trying to achieve in Chawinda. Knowledgeable scholars would understand the big picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• That short, poorly attended discussion doesn't overturn a community RFC.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you all very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Undone against consensus and the facts that appear in every source. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No reliable source denies those two facts. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, the result field is implementing an RfC result. You can't change it without achieving WP:CONSENSUS for the change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. RfC was 6 years old and the last consensus to change the result was 3 years old. Obviously a new discussion would be needed to change anything from "inconclusive". You can't overturn the latest consensus without providing clear cut WP:RS for supporting "pakistani victory" which is meaningless in this context per your own reply above. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point, your only option is to do another RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is among five pillars of Wikipedia, not RfC. Upholding a 6 years old RfC against a consensus sticking for more than 3 years is not going to fly.

See: David R. Higgins (20 January 2016). M48 Patton vs Centurion: Indo-Pakistani War 1965. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-1-4728-1093-9.:

"At 1630hrs, with the Pakistani position faltering, Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik, commander of 24th Infantry Brigade, expressed doubts about being able to hold his position and unsuccessfully sought permission to withdraw from Chawinda. Pakistani artillery fired at Indian armour at Butur Dograndi from some 1,500m, which halted the Indian movement. 25th Cavalry tanks engaged as well, and this artillery/tank combination knocked out four Indian tanks; 24th Cavalry then stemmed the advance in this sector. Lieutenant-General Dunn, GOC I Corps, met with 1st Armoured Division and 6th Mountain Division at Maharajke to discuss fresh plans for Indian forces to capture Chawinda, Bedian and Zafarwal. 6th Mountain Division was tasked with taking Chawinda, while 1st Armoured Division and 14th Infantry Division moved on Bedian and Zafarwal, respectively. Since 6th Mountain Division’s 69th and 99th Mountain brigades were already committed elsewhere, 35th and 58th Infantry brigades were reallocated to Major-General Korla’s 6th Mountain Division from 1st Armoured Division. As a preliminary to launching an attack on Chawinda, Indian forces captured certain villages; these would serve as pivots to attack Chawinda, and to counter any Pakistani attempts to interfere. In a series of brisk actions, 1st Armoured Division employed 4th Horse, 17th Horse and 8th Garhwal Rifles, securing the villages by dusk against stiff resistance. Pakistan lost 28 tanks during the day. Several Indian commanders were also killed. During the night of 16/17 September, 1st Armoured Division headquarters misunderstood the reallocation of 35th Infantry Brigade to 6th Mountain Division, and moved the brigade forward from Gadgor to Phillora as part of a preliminary attack move before the brigade returned to its original location, thereby wasting valuable time. After three days of heavy fighting, 17 September was relatively calm, with only minor repositioning. The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda, but it had created a large penetration between Bedian and Chawinda. Localized Pakistani counter-attacks achieved little, and Indian armour and infantry held all their gains against tenacious Pakistani attacks. Tank battles raged throughout the morning and afternoon, with both sides losing eight vehicles each. 6th Mountain Division was to effect its attack on Chawinda while 1st Armoured Division held key villages west of Chawinda to cover Korla’s command until it captured the settlement. However the attack, slated for the night of 17/18 September, was again postponed for 24 hours. After Major-General Rajinder Singh stressed that his 1st Armoured Division had been holding villages west of Chawinda and would be hard pressed to continue doing so, the division was withdrawn from two of the villages; but it retained Jassoran at all costs, as this represented a firm base of operations for the Indian infantry. According to 1st Armoured Brigade, conditions during 14–17 September had been favourable for an infantry assault on Chawinda, as it and Bedian had been isolated and cut off from three sides, following 1st Armoured Brigade’s having invested both from the rear, particularly on 16 and 17 September. Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise, and an opportunity was lost. Even so, although Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region, they had shot their bolt and were exhausted. Pakistani armour had been battered, and stocks of artillery ammunition were nearly expended."

Given this detailed source, more detailed than the sources of dubious reliability rejected in earlier consensus notes that Pakistan "halted the Indian offensive" and also notes the Indian gains, it really makes no sense to conclusions of victory and defeat. Why can't we stick to sources at this stage? Srijanx22 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read it again. The source you provide above clearly states ... stemmed the advance in this sector ..., The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda ..., Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise and Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region .... The rest is just "icing on the cake". The real meat of the matter was that it was a clear victory for Pakistan. Indian military were unable to take Chawinda because the Pakistani military did not let them take Chawinda. The war's result was decidedly inconclusive; however, the battle for Chawinda resulted in a clear, conclusive victory for Pakistan (even according to the source you quoted above). This is not just a matter on which editors may agree or disagree. This is a matter of what the sources say, and even Higgins indicates that the battle of Chawinda was won by Pakistan. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The source does not make that interpretation. All it says is that the Indian offensive came to a stop at Chawinda but they continued to hold the surrounding villages in the Sialkot region of Pakistan, and that the Pakistani had shot their bolt. If anything, that just implies that the Indians were in a commanding position to dictate things at Chawinda had the ceasefire not come into force. See, for example, [1]: Chawinda ( Pak ) held out for another five days when the cease - fire saved it from capitulation or war ravages . The tank battles of Phillora , Jassoran and Butur Dograndi were historic and the victory which the Indian troops won was unique...

In any case, the fact of the matter is that the RFC that you have so forcefully invoked to change results had not stood the test of time and was duly changed back in 2017. That discussion too involved half a dozen participants, if not more, and what eventually emerged was a clear unanimous consensus that inconclusive was an apt description of the result of this battle, in line with what the preponderance of third party, reliable sources said. More importantly, it rejected the very sources on which you have based your case: John Fricker (who was officially tasked to write a history of the war by the Pakistani government) and the book written by one of the Pakistan's foreign service officer. That's just how the normal consensus process works. And mind you, that consensus has stood the test of time for three years now, a fact that reinforces its credibility and relevance. Trying to pretend otherwise, or deliberately failing to consider that as if no discussion took place is simply disruptive. Edit warring to force things is even moreso. Now if you feel so strongly about this whole thing to the extent of asserting that Chawinda "was a clear victory for Pakistan", then show us your sources and achieve a new consensus. Until then, the status-quo will prevail. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to overlook your apparent lack of AGF and your unjust blame of edit warring, which I have not done. It is you who are pretending that the so called 2017 consensus, which actually took place in 2018 (if that is the consensus you mean), was able to overturn the previous consensus. Consensus can change, but more importantly you need to stop denying the obvious meanings from the sources, even the Higgins source you quoted. No, Higgins does not actually call it a Pakistani victory, but he does imply it. And it would not be the first time that one side "had shot their bolt", but the other side was unaware of it. Had the Indian military known that the bolt had been shot, then Higgins would not have written that the Indian military considered it to be "unwise" to attack Chawinda. It is you who seems to feel too strongly about this, so stop denying it. It's like a 4th quarter football game where one team makes a touchdown to tie the game, or a runner making the tying run in the 9th inning of a baseball game. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No amount of denial can change those two facts. Can you produce a reliable source that states otherwise? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Response to MBlaze: I had organised the references into two groups (those supporting Pakistani victory and those calling it a stalemate). There should be no need to remove this while you argue about what the result field should say.

I am happy to remove Fricker, which reads like a propaganda piece to me anyway, but Shahid Amin is fine with an OUP book.

Cohen and Dasgupta, who are strategic experts, have called it a "debacle" for India. A bit overstated, but not far off the mark if you read the detailed military assessments. Yes, Pakistan was on the verge of defeat. But India wasn't able to take adantage of that since its own armour had been sent back for refitting. India threw infantry regiments in front of Pakistani shelling from Chawinda. They got cut to pieces and ran away (literally!).

When the Indian prime minister asked the Army chief, do you want a couple more days to achieve your "spectacular victory", the Army chief replied, "no we are done" (my paraphrasing). So, Johri's idea that Pakistan "got saved" by the ceasefire doesn't hold water. In 20th century wars, you don't get an infinite amount of time to do your job. Either you get it done or call it off. And look at those casualty numbers! It would be considered criminal if it happend today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if there is scope for a further RfC about this, to confirm or overturn the previous one.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC: What was the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda?

In 2015, the community decided at this RfC that Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda. Pro-Indian editors disputed the RfC outcome on the administrator's noticeboard, and the outcome of this RfC close review was to confirm the Pakistani victory. In 2018, a talk page consensus decided that the battle was "inconclusive". At issue in this RfC is the question of which of the previous consensuses takes precedence.

Note: The Battle of Chawinda was the final engagement of the Second Kashmir War. It is common ground that the Second Kashmir War was inconclusive. The decision needed here is not about the outcome of the campaign, but the outcome of this particular battle within it.

Procedurally speaking, there is dispute about whether RfC nominators should sign their nomination. I'm choosing to sign this one.—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• WT:MILHIST notified.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: where is there a dispute about nominators signing their noms? - wolf 16:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Pakistani victory. A quick skim of some sources reinforces those cited above and it seems to be fairly clear. The sources agree that in this battle the Indians failed to achieve their objectives and the Pakistanis succeeded in achieving theirs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the status-quo as is. Borne out by multiple reliable sources. And when a consensus has been changed, it goes without saying that the new one takes precedence, moreso when it has enjoyed wide acceptance. More particularly, the latter discussion dismissed as unreliable the very sources that the RFC took for granted, and no argument seems to have been made against that. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's make that now. The talk page discussion was initiated by Indian editor Razer2115, who contended that: (1) A source was unreliable because that source was itself based on Pakistani sources (but he doesn't say why he believes that, or how it affects the source's reliability); (2) The fact that a source says it was a "debacle" for India doesn't mean that Pakistan won (a pathetic argument that we can safely disregard); (3) He couldn't find the Zaloga source, so it should be inadmissible (which is directly counter to our core verifiability policy, see WP:SOURCEACCESS); and (4) the Amin source is unreliable because it's by a foreign policy specialist rather than a military one (even though his own argument is that the battle was ended by a UN-mandated ceasefire). With these four rather dubious points, there was agreement from Indian editor RaviC, confirmed sockpuppet MyLord, Indian editor Sdmarathe, editor of undisclosed nationality 1990'sguy, Indian editor Adamgerber80, and Indian editor DBigXray. In other words, that whole discussion consisted of Indian editors deciding that India hadn't lost, on the basis of arguments that the previous and much more thorough RfC had already examined and rejected.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: They don't. Surely Pakistan had no objective of losing more land to India and also suffering more casualties than India. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)