Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948

Toolbox info is incorrect

The toolbox info is incorrect as it says that GB was annexed by Pakistan. GB was not annexed, rather it was acceded to Pakistan by the locals. According to various scholars, the people of Gilgit as well as those of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin, Punial, Hunza and Nagar joined Pakistan by choice and the Gilgit scouts willingly fought alongside Pakistan and the princely state of Chitral against the Indian/Dogra occupation. I have decided to delete the toolbox with the statement that GB was annexed because that is a false statement as Gilgit and its neighboring states signed a combined instrument of accession to Pakistan on November 18th 1947. Seeing the pro-Pakistani sentiment amongst the people of Gilgit, it is baseless to call it an annexation, also the fact that the Gilgit Scouts fought alongside Pakistan proves that GB had very strong pro-Pakistani sentiments. On the other hand could the same be said about India in Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh? Did it have the favor of it's people? It was India that had annexed two thirds of Kashmir via an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator (Maharaja Singh) which was not favored by it's people. When a dictator accedes the territory that doesn't belong to him to another country without the approval of it's people, that is illegal annexation. India acted on an accession treaty signed by a despot dictator, what gives the right for one single man to decide the fate of millions? Pakistan was clearly the liberator.

See references:

Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269, S2CID 159652497

Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (9 January 2016). "Gilgit-Baltistan—part of Pakistan by choice". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2017. Nearly 70 years ago, the people of the Gilgit Wazarat revolted and joined Pakistan of their own free will, as did those belonging to the territories of Chilas, Koh Ghizr, Ishkoman, Yasin and Punial; the princely states of Hunza and Nagar also acceded to Pakistan. Hence, the time has come to acknowledge and respect their choice of being full-fledged citizens of Pakistan.

Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004). Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. pp. 309–. ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2.

Mahmud, Ershad (2008), "The Gilgit-Baltistan Reforms Package 2007: Background, Phases and Analysis", Policy Perspectives, 5 (1): 23–40, JSTOR 42909184

Sokefeld, Martin (November 2005), "From Colonialism to Postcolonial Colonialism: Changing Modes of Domination in the Northern Areas of Pakistan" (PDF), The Journal of Asian Studies, 64 (4): 939–973, doi:10.1017/S0021911805002287, S2CID 161647755

Victoria Schofield, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War, I.B.Tauris, 2003

Wrong link

1947 mirpur massacre leads to a different event. 2A02:A44D:E8B0:1:258D:6D40:804E:C29 (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox info

@Kautilya3: Your edit reverted more than just infobox edits. Why Indian gain (which is bigger) shouldn't be entered first? Not to mention that India is described as the victor of this war by many sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because you replaced the existing precise wording (one-third and two-thirds) with wooly wording like "most of Kashmir". You did this in both the infobox and the body. Yes?

As to which country should go first and which should go second, we don't want to engage in enormous hair-splitting. The question doesn't interest me. (We write Wikipedia for literate readers, who read and try to understand the substance, not verbal gimmicry.) But I don't want to see to-ing and fro-ing between the sides. So unless there is a strong reason for change, for which WP:CONSENSUS can be obtained, the STATUSQUO should remain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"Most of Kashmir" is the right way to define it because "Kashmir" also includes Aksai Chin and Pakistan or India never fought a battle in Aksai Chin or had any control there.

The current wording is more dubious than you think. It is "Pakistan controls roughly a third of", "whereas India controls the rest".

In line with your message on above section, it seems that Pakistan army was "fully involved" in this conflict before Indian army attacked Kashmir.

In this sense, I am wondering how "Pakistan controls roughly a third" would be relevant. It lost control over most of Kashmir. At best it can say "Pakistan retains control over area what came to be known as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, while "India gains control over most of Kashmir" which is still a reality.

Infobox needs to be also clear about Indian victory since many reliable sources say so. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOOR. You need to provide multple high-quality reliable sources for whatever wording you want to propose and argue that that is how the majority of RS describe the result. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss the result later but first we need to resolve the issue over "most of Kashmir". See what sources say:

• Huth, P.K.; Huth, P.K.; Allee, T.L. (2002). The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-521-80508-7. Pakistan refused to reconcile itself to the loss of much of Kashmir
• "The rise of contemporary Islamic fundamentalists: case study of Sudan and Pakistan". University of Calgary. Indian troops reached Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir first, and thus they controlled most of Kashmir. The Pakistanis only were able to seize one third of Kashmir.
• Ciment, James (2015). Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II. Taylor & Francis. p. 718. ISBN 978-1-317-47186-8. When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percent of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million was Muslim. [...] Indian forces won most of Kashmir.
• Duiker, W.J. (2014). Contemporary World History. Cengage Learning. p. 293. ISBN 978-1-305-15628-9. India also seized most of Kashmir but at the cost of creating an intractable problem that has poisoned relations with Pakistan to the present day.
• DeRouen, K.R.; Heo, U. (2007). Civil Wars of the World: Major Conflicts Since World War II. Civil Wars of the World: Major Conflicts Since World War II. ABC-CLIO. p. 417. ISBN 978-1-85109-919-1. Auchinleck's refusal to allow British participation in Kashmir perhaps proved decisive in the military conflict as India took control of most of Kashmir.
• "Offense/defense balance and Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan". Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The result was a war where India holds most of Kashmir, but Pakistan gained a share of it.

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you didn't process what I said. So here it is again. Point 1: You cannot replace precise wording in the the infobox by vauge wording. (This is independent of whatever sources you have produced). Point 2: For any other changes, you need to state the change you want made and back it up with RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Above sources are enough for supporting my original wording: "Most of Kashmir fell to Indian control, while Pakistan gains one-third of the region." This is what I am still proposing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"Two-thirds" was apparently changed to "most of" in this edit without any source. It was probably a misguided copy-edit.

None of your sources sway me. None of them are specialists in Kashmir and it is doubtful if they even know what "Kashmir" means. The last source is a Master's thesis. The first source is a constitutional lawyer from the 1950s. You will find many dubious statements and claims in them. If "Kashmir" is supposed to mean the Kashmir Valley, then "most of Kashmir" would be wrong since India has all of Kashmir. If they mean the Kashmir Division (which was called "Kashmir province" in 1947), then it would be true. If they mean the whole of the Kashmir region, then it would be wrong again. It is perfectly normal for non-specialist authors to pick up tidbits from here and there and regurgitate them without understanding what they mean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

No those sources are reliable enough for the information. What actually your preferred "specialists in Kashmir" say? Can you recall them? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I have no nationalistic iron in this fire. I have made an edit that tends to follow that by Abhishek0831996. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we don't write the article in the infobox. It should be an at a glance summary. It is not a place for intricate detail. Detail belongs in the body of the article and perhaps in the lead. I have edited the territory parameter to read: One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder IMHO, this is a summary that best conforms to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. To the result, I believe that this has been flogged to death, resuscitated and flogged to death again. It is an ex parrot. Neither side got what they wanted. Both sides got something before the UN stepped in. Per MOS:MIL an appropriate result would be the see aftermath section option - the nearest existing section being the Moves up to cease-fire section but that isn't great. The alternative is to omit the result parameter. IMHO, the status quo (United Nations-mediated ceasefire) is a reasonable WP:IAR alternative to the guidance at MOS:MIL. However, the dot-points that follow are intricate detail and I have removed these as being inconsistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and usage of the result parameter per MOS:MIL. I would suggest that the article could be improved by expanding detail on the cease-fire and aftermath that would address some of the detail mentioned. I have retitled two sections as a start. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Thanks for improvements but there is more. There are three Kashmirs. One that is controlled by India, another that is controlled by Pakistan and the last one is Aksai Chin which was never controlled by either countries. Sources I mentioned above say "most of Kashmir" falling into Indian hands instead of "rest of Kashmir" or "remainder of Kashmir", because they know about Aksai Chin. Can you discuss this issue and change the wording? Thanks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Which source has mentioned Aksai Chin in the context of this conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

What Kautilya3 has asked. This appears to me to be splitting hairs and a non-starter. If there is any substance to this, it should be supported by the article in the first instance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: But this question does not make sense because India established "control over the Kashmir valley and most parts of Jammu and Ladakh before a UN-sponsored ceasefire."[1] "Aksai Chin" (part of Kashmir) is not on the list. That's why we cannot describe "remainder" or "rest of Kashmir" falling in Indian control. It gives false impression that Aksai Chin was also a part of this battle because it comes under Kashmir but in actual it was not a part of this battle and was not controlled by Pakistan or India. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are making assertions about what sources do or do not mean, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for verification. The relative areas are defined by the UN cease-fire per this map. I have change the description in the territory parameter to read One-third of Jammu and Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over remainder, since the war was fought over the principality. Kautilya3, do you see any issue with this? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Cinderalla157. That is the right thing to say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderalla157: But Kautilya3 changed here changed the earlier text to "successfully defended the majority of the contested territory"(emphasis mine). So why infobox cannot say the same? I would support modifying the current wording to "One-third of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. Indian control over the majority of territory". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The aftermath section is under construction. I think we let this gestate for a while before making a change to the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request: Jammu massacres

This article should mention in the lead and background section that Hari Singh slaughtered 100,000+ Kashmiri Muslims in "revenge" for their dissent and to change the demographics of the region, which fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of. Solblaze (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please state you request as "change x to y". Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done We have 1947 Jammu massacres for it. Unless this war was anyhow significantly influenced with those massacres then the sources would say that. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sources do say that:

  • Snedden, Christopher (2001). "What happened to Muslims in Jammu? Local identity, '"the massacre" of 1947' and the roots of the 'Kashmir problem'". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 24 (2): 111–134. doi:10.1080/00856400108723454. ISSN 0085-6401. ...the tale of a massacre of Muslims produced the Kashmir disupte
  • Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir : the unwritten history. Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India. ISBN 978-93-5029-897-8. OCLC 849305950. After Partition in 1947, Jammuites engaged in three significant actions. The first was a Muslim uprising in the Poonch area of western Jammu province against the unpopular Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh. The second was serious inter-religious violence throughout the province that killed or displaced larger numbers of people from all religious communities. The third was the creation of Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir in the area of western Jammu Province that the 'rebels' had 'freed' or 'liberated'. These significant actions all took place before the Maharaja acceded to India on 26 October 1947. They divided 'his' Muslim-majority state and confirmed that it was undeliverable in its entirety to either India or Pakistan. They instigated the ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over which state should possess J&K—the so-called 'Kashmir dispute{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Fareed, Rifat. "The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2023-03-21. The killings triggered a series of events, including a war between two newly independent nations of India and Pakistan, which gave birth to Kashmir dispute.

  Solblaze (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The sources don't say what you claim (except I haven't checked Al Jazeera, which is a newspaper op-ed, not a reliable source for history. Neither is it clear that the so-called massacres took place before the invasion. And they are not part of the war in any case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But Snedden (2001) outright says The tale of a massacre of Muslims caused a chain of events that produced the Kashmir dispute my bad on not copying this quote properly initially - the text was not copy paste-able

Al-Jazeera is not an op-ed, it's published in the news section, not the opinion section. It also attributes the article's contents to Al-Jazeera itself at the bottom of the page. And although HISTRS is not a Wikipedia policy page and its guidelines aren't set in stone, I couldn't find any mention of newspapers being considered unreliable - it simply says when available, scholarly sources are preferred.

In fact, it states This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement. Solblaze (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I'm assuming you have no objection to Snedden? Solblaze (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I may or I may not. It depends on what you want to say based on it. Note that Snedden's book considered quite biased in India.[2][3] Morever, it is now known pretty conclusively that the Pakisani invasion of Kashmir was decided on 12 September. There was pretty much no violence in Jammu on that date, "massacre" or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Copying below a couple of timeline entries from the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict:

• 19 September 1947 (1947-09-19): The Muslim Conference acting president Choudhri Hamidullah and general secretary Ishaque Qureshi were summoned by Pakistani prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan and briefed about Pakistan's invasion plans.
• 14 October 1947 (1947-10-14): Some activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Akalis mounted attacks on villages of the Jammu district, which killed Muslims and set houses on fire, stated to be the beginning of the 1947 Jammu violence.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This feels a bit WP:SYNTHy. Solblaze (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 A way to phrase this in the lead would be

"The conflict was sparked by the genocidal massacres of Kashmiri Muslims in Jammu"

As for the note in the infobox, I'd prefer it be removed altogether, but it can be altered to have a similar phrasing. Solblaze (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It was not sparked by the "massacres" in Jammu. It is just false propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you calling RS false propaganda? Solblaze (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, could you take another look at this and make the proposed change? The only argument presented against it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Solblaze (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I have been pinged. For the record, I have no nationalistic ties to the subject and to that extent, my observations are objective. I declined the original edit request because it was insufficiently precise as to what was to be added where. I have since kept a watch on this discussion. I observe that the citations are not as complete as they might be. Perhaps the most pertinent part of the proposed text is fueled the violence that Pakistan would take advantage of, which cites two sources. I cannot access the first. For the second, the hyperlink is to the home page of Frontline and an extensive search by author and title does not reveal the cited article. The assertion by Solblaze is that there was a direct causative effect between the 1947 Jammu massacres and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. The opposition by Kautilya3 is that there was not. Solblaze has cited sources and provided quote snippets to support their assertion. For myself, I am uncomfortable making an assessment based on quotes alone without the fuller context in which they were made. I have considered the following articles: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948, 1947 Jammu massacres, 1947 Poonch rebellion and Kashmir conflict. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 is part of the ongoing Kashmir conflict. The partition, rebellion, massacares and first war arguably initiated the conflict. Hence, where sources might assert that [t]hey [including the 1947 Jammu massacres] instigated the ongoing dispute, it does not necessarily mean that they instigated the first war since the dispute is much greater than the first war. That is why the fuller context of a quote is important.

The proposal is to assert a causative relationship: that the massacres were a cause of the first war. To even entertain such a case, the massacres must precede the war and even then, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a caution. In respect to establishing clear timelines leading up to the start of the war on 22 October 1947, the articles are quite poor. The Poonch rebellion, between June 1947 – October 1947 clearly predates the official start of the war. There is also a clear causative link between the rebellion, Indian intervention and the start of the war. The massacres occurred between October 1947 – November 1947, with the first indication being 14 October. They certainly don't appear to cause the rebellion (the rebellion predates the massacre) and are more likely to be a response to the rebellion - with both being a response/result of partition. While the massacres may have slightly preceded the start of the war I am not seeing a reasonable case for asserting they were a cause of the first war. On the otherhand, I am seeing a reasonably likely case to assert they were causative of the Kashmir conflict, along with the other events (the partition, rebellion, massacares and first war) but the conflict is not synonymous with the first war.

Consequently, on the information before me, and having given full consideration to all of that information to the extent I am able, I cannot action the change, even if it were to be more precise as to what was to be added where. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 - In October 1947 tribesmen from Pakistan invaded Kashmir, spurred by reports of attacks on Muslims and frustrated by Hari Singh's delaying tactics. - from BBC - combined with Al Jazeera stating the same, and Snedden writing that the wider conflict was sparked by outrage at the killings of Muslims should be sufficient (I believe I provided a url to Snedden in my citations)

I think we all can agree it's a bit unfair the article doesn't mention Hari Singh's shenanigans when it says the tribes invaded and "started" the conflict. Solblaze (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Solblaze, we now deal with quite a separate issue: that massacres of Muslims preceding the Muslim uprising in the west and not one which was subsequent to the start of the war. The Al Jazeera article is not relevant as I read it, since it is quite clearly dealing with events in November. Both Al Jazeera and the BBC are news sources and are not what would be considered good quality sources for this purpose. Sneddon however is a different matter. Unfortunately, I cannot access either of his works save a preview of the journal article. At the second paragraph he states: There are two reasons why this massacre, if it occurred, is important. I would tend to agree. While it is clear that Pakistan planned an uprising, massacre/s and/or riots against Muslims would have played to such a plan. Sneddon likely refers to events around the 1947 Poonch rebellion. This article presently states: "exaggerated reports of events in Poonch circulated in these Pakistan districts in which State troops are cited as the aggressors." In light of Sneddon (and any other good quality sources on this), we might modify what the article has to say but the 1947 Poonch rebellion is the main article for those events. However, without the benefit of the full text (and the full context of what is said), I leave this as might - particularly given that Sneddon has stated if it occurred. If you have access to the full journal article and/or an excerpt of the book, I would appreciate you emailing me a copy. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

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)