Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | India B‑class | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Pakistan B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Converging the pictures into a gif file
While the maps are exhaustive, it can be quite cumbersome to understand for a newcomer. So I suggest that someone take up the job of merging all the maps into a gif file that shows the conflict in a seamless single image. Wikipedia currently does not have anything for flash so gif files are the only solution unless anyone else has any better ideas.--Idleguy 06:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Er, would be reluctant to change the maps, they took weeks to do, working from the somewhat opaque Indian official history. The history of the war is almost incomprehensable without the maps! There are no other maps in existance of the front lines Mike Young 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, mike and idleguy, I tried to bundle the images provided by mike into a gif, do you think its possible to use it in the article?
LegalEagle (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the Gif. However, I don't think the article would benefit from use of a gif rather than individual maps. This is because the gif would move too fast for people to take in what was happening in the map and relate it to the text. If you made the gif slower then it would take for ever to wind to the end. gifs should be used for simpler things than these.
Gif are great for images of moving things eg atoms, or even for naval battles, but I don't think it works in this particular case.
Thanks for trying. Mike Young (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
AZK
Can someone include a definition for "AZK"? I assume it refers to Pakistani irregular militia, but an encyclopedia should not use abbreviations without explaining them. Thanks.
- I guess AZK means Azad Kashmir Millitants /soldiers (Azad in urdu means FREE- Alluding to Independance) probably coined by pakistani side. We'll check more into it --Vyzasatya 04:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Correction by Dereck Clark (Dec. 3, 2005)
Way too much military innuendo
Hello, this is an encyclopedia article about a war, not a project about details of military proceedings. And it does not need at all a general conclusion in the end about how to evaluate military details for the future. Please just focus on what is of historical relevance. 84.59.66.251- 00:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hoped that this was. Military history is what was in this official history. The actual text isn't that long, just having 10 pics makes it a large page. Many other wars have much more detail than this, including orders of Battle etc. I found I could not understand anything about this war until I had drawn the pics. Mike Young 13:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
POV
I think it is an issue that every 'major source' is written by the Indian gov't or an Indian army general. There should be more balanced sources than that. Fkh82 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know any good Pakistani sources?
- I only had access to the sources given, and could only work with those.
- Also my work concentrated on where the front lines were and the movement of them. In general you will find more agreement with that between sources on different sides, (eg this town surrendered on this day) than you will on things like causes or casualties. I therefore avoided mentioning these in the bits of the article I wrote.
- I found great discrepancies between casualty estimates of Indian and Pakistani scources in the 1967 war when I studied that Mike Young 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"The accession is still questioned by the Pakistanis. The Pakistani claim is that since the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim, the princely state should have been given to Pakistan"CAN I ASK MR BIASED AUTHER OF THIS ARTICLE THAT WHAT IS THE OFFICAL STAND OF PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY AND ITS FUTURE SHOULD BE DETERMENED BY KASHMIRI PEOPLE, BY A PLEBASIGHT UNDER UN. MR. AUTHOUR STOP DECEIVING THE WORLD FOR YOUR BELOVED INDIA
Well, the precondition to holding a plebiscite is "Pakistan should withdraw all military forces from Azaad Kashmir". Also, what was pakistan's position on Junagarh? Majority hindu with a muslim ruler who wanted to accede to pakistan.In case of Junagarh, Pakistan didn't want to hold plebiscite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.243.168 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
exactly Mr. 165.123.243.168
how come India accepted Kashmir's accession while bring up 'will of the people" issue in case of Junagarh--143.167.237.145 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan Won Because It Captured 2/5 Of Kashmir
This article has far to much about military tactics and little about the cause of the conflict, and its immediate aftermath and outcome.
The fact that Hari Singh chose accession to India over Pakistan and that Pakistan still captured 2/5 of what Indians believe should have been ALL thiers is a blatant Indian defeat, India to this day calls Pakistan administered Kashmir, POK for Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Obviously Indians believe that Pakistan occupies thier territory and thus the 1947 war was a huge defeat for India despite the fact its army was twice the size of Pakistan's.
I would like this article to be clearer on the huge Indian losses in both territory (2/5 of kashmir lost to Pakistan during the war!) and manpower. The format of this article should be similar to the other indo-Pakistan wars.
- I think you may be over-egging this. It certainly wasn't accepted as a defeat by India. How much of the population ended up in what was Pakistani controlled Kashmir? The Pakistani objective of fermenting a Muslim revolt and occupying Srinagar was not achieved. I ususally consider a war to be a defeat if the government loses power as a result of the war. The Indian Government didn't lose power.Mike Young 13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think your totally incapacitated, if a country looses 2/5 of anything, land, assets etc its a loss, if this war isnt an indian defeat i dont know what is, I would like to see a menu/bar on this wiki page like on other indo-pak wars,
india lost land...key word "LOST".....india doesnt have to accept defeat for it to be actually defeated....and you say that "I ususally consider a war to be a defeat if the government loses power as a result of the war"......?????.....pakistan did not lose government power during war of 1975 and kargil war.....sure later after kargil there was a coup but the war was not the reason.....india lost......its clear
- Given that you've been posting the same meaningless rant across talk pages of different Indo-Pak wars, what exactly is the point you intend to make? That Pakistan won all their wars? Or that you want to rewrite history to suit your views?
- Any person with a passing interest in military history ought to tell you that gaining only 2/5th of a disputed land in a conflict while losing the vast majority to the enemy is hardly classified as a victory. Especially when the land lost to the opponent is more fertile, populous and wealthier as well as containing the region's largest city (Srinagar). And I don't have to shout (read "All Caps") to tell you that it was Pakistan that lost 3/5th of the disputed area of Kashmir!
- saying that even when the raja of kashmir decided to join with india, and pashtun tribemen attacking indian territory (as india claims) and after attacking takes 2/5 of land that india claims is theirs. so did you not lose 2/5 land to pakistan. i am not pakistani so i frankly dont care who wins, but considering that india cannot accept any defeat is quite pathetic
- btw, there was no war in 1975, it was in 1971, unless you are referring to the Balochistan skirmish which could hardly be classified as a war. And regarding the results of Kargil, anyone following South Asian events should know that the retreat in Kargil prompted drastic changes culminating in the coup. Unless you wish to believe otherwise. --Idleguy 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all if Pakistan didnt win this war after liberating 2/5 of kashmir who won? India? India won the war by loosing 2/5 of kashmir to a newly formed state of pakistan with half the size of army that India had? So please first of all clairfy who won, it my view the winner here is clearly pakistan.
As for "How much of the population ended up in what was Pakistani controlled Kashmir?"
We dont care about population, we dont want population we care about land! we want land and we got 2/5 of what according to harry singh should have join india, so either that means that India lost land which legally according to them and the accession should be ALL thiers, or pakistan lost the war by liberating 2/5 of kashmir after harry singh chose accesion to India over pakistan.,
- Your arguments are quite funny at best, both here and in the 65 war talk page. You say you want land more than anything and ended up with only 2/5th of the land that you so desperately sought. Isn't that a reflection that Pakistan failed to occupy the vast tracts of land during the war? Given Pakistan's early mover advantage in sending its troops and tribals to capture Pakistan, they should have done better. But one did not foresee that fellow muslims from Pakistan would start looting and raping Kashmiris instead of capturing vital links giving India the military toehold via Srinagar. The rest is history as most of the gains made by Pakistan backed troops were wiped out.
- True, India just have the majority of Kashmir ;-) and while it seems India are content with their share, Pakistan having lost the crucial regions of Kashmir during the '47 war is to this day using all means - read wars, militancy and terrorism - to gain back Indian Kashmir. Not that it has been too successful either. The goof up of Operation Gibraltar to "liberate" kashmir in 65 ended in a debacle of a war for Pakistan. Not learning from history they attempted a similar "harebrained scheme" (If I may add that as my personal observation) in 99 for the Kargil peaks and came up naught.
- Maybe in Pakistani schools they teach that 2/5 > 3/5 just like their own fairy tale version of history. tch. Nothing more to add here. --Idleguy 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Idleguy; Lets cut a long story short and why dont you tell me who won this war? India won? Pakistan won? kashmir won? the arms dealers won? who? And please explain to me why if india is so content with its 3/5 it calls azad kashmir pok?
that would cut the chase,. thanks
- Sometimes a war can end without a decisive military result. There need not always be a victor and a loser since stalemates are also common. Militarily, by the end of 1948, the war had stalemated since neither side could progress any further nor lose any ground. However, a war is looked at from the political, tactical and strategic level. In terms of the end result, the Indians ought to be a more contended lot given that before hostilities began Pakistan had the geographic position since a majority of its troops being centered close to Kashmir's borders as well as the first mover advantage. If anything it is still of great regret to Pakistan for failing to have taken the Valley including Srinagar. This 3/5 of Kashmir holds the key to all the Indus river basin and it is only the Indus Water Treaty that protects Pakistan from an agricultural blockade (which may not be the case during an allout water when India is threatened). Baren land in the Northern Areas is what Pakistan got with only a sliver called Azad Kashmir being remotely fertile in the entire kashmir now under Pakistan.
- I think it is safe to say that in light of these facts and that the majority of Kashmir (read more fertile, richer and populous) is with India it was a draw, but a draw that the Indians had made the most gains of. Of course you might not fully comprehend this complex matter. ;-) --Idleguy 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- and ofcourse india not being able to controll the seperatists constantly fighting for an independant kashmir, freedom from both india and pakistan, and india fails to stabalize a once peacful land which has now turned into one of the most dangerous places in the world, and when after pakistan taking 2/5 of kashmir, azad kashmir is stable and peaceful with out deaths every 5 minutes.....and when yet the indian-occupied kashmiris were promised a refrendum to either chose accetion with india, pakistan, or form an indepentand state, that refrendum order is still in the drawers of monhoman singh's table..........why cant you pakistanis and indians just let kashmir be its own country
- One line response: Pakistani sponsored terrorism/militancy.
- Larger response: Pakistan itself has not left its share of Kashmir to hold a referendum (mentioned as one the primary clauses in the UN resolution). So could you stop the boring rhetoric and wonder why the Pak troops themselves are yet to vacate the area to enable holding the plebiscite? Just because a few terrorists with help from the other side of the border indulge in petty criminal activities ranging from murder, extortion, bank robberies, narcotics and illegal arms doesn't mean they speak for the whole populace. A recent UK based research firm conducted a survey that showed that nearly 2/3rds of Indian Kashmiris felt they would be better off in India with just one in 20 saying joining Pakistan would be better option! Violence is not proof that the local people wish to separate. See Operation Gibraltar for one proof of how Pakistan tried to instigate Kashmiris and flopped badly and you'll know. Just because Al Quaeda uses violence in the name of Islam, does it mean that you or the majority moderate muslims subscribe to his narrow views? Same with Kashmiri terrorists who resort to violence; most of the Kashmiris with whom I've had interactions with don't really support these imported terrorists and henchmen of ISI. --Idleguy 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, Pakistan did not win the war..It attacked a soverign state kashmir at the time, The King succeded the land to India, Having a 52/48% muslim vs hindu/sikh population barely constitutes a majority. The King decided to go with India end of question..When India agreed to the cease fire under the UN suggestion, Pakistan was on retreat. The general at the time recommended to the PM at the time, Nehru not to listen to the UN. Obviously that did not happen. Pakistan is a child from Mother Indias womb..prior to 1947 there was no pakistan..The land of the "pure" is a rogue terrorist nation..where is osama bin laden/.? china? no pakistan...The land of the pure where all converted to islam, the land of the pure is in india. so there is no such thing as pakistan in my opionion..Where is r.q khan..the seller of nuclear technology in pakistan..hiding..where did IRan , North Korea get nuclear technology...from r.q khan..who wanted the "allah" bomb..who are you kidding?..Pakistan is not a country, it is roque terrorist land, which is occupied on ancient Indian land..same thing with afganistan..all part of India..Pakistan started as a terrorist state by attacking Kashmir,,and obvioiusly that still holds true today.
ALL I GOT TO SAY IS THAT IT IS OBVIOUS PAKISTAN WON THIS WAR, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!!!!!! AND THIS IDLE GUY IS ENTRAPPED IN THE MASS PROPAGANDA MEDIA OF INDIA, CARRY ON DUDE!
KASHMIR IS OCCUPIED BY INDIA! OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY AND ONE DAY INSHALLAH IT WILL BECOME AZAAAD THE DAY ISLAM AND MUSLIMS WILL PREVAIL IN THE WORLD AND HOPE IT IS IN YOUR LIFETIME SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE ERRORS IN YOUR WAY!!! AMEEN!
Er, I don't understand this. Even if, as you seem to hope, Pakistan attacked Kashmir and occupied it tomorrow, how would that change what has happened in the past? Mike Young 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
" This 3/5 of Kashmir holds the key to all the Indus river basin and it is only the Indus Water Treaty that protects Pakistan from an agricultural blockade (which may not be the case during an allout water when India is threatened). Baren land in the Northern Areas is what Pakistan got with only a sliver called Azad Kashmir being remotely fertile in the entire kashmir now under Pakistan." A Gem by Idleguy..
Idleguy, the above comment shows how under qualified you are, First the Indus river originates in Tibet (Now Part of PRC) not India, it passes through India on the way into Pakistan in which the Indus river is almost entirely contained, secondly the 2/5 of Land that Pakistan liberated holds the key to central asia, India thankfully has no direct access to central asia and thus requires transit rights from Pakistan to move its low quality products into central asia, India got overpopulated land, riven with civil war, and no border or access to central asia.
- )
- Friend, I hope you can find an optometrist as it appears you are misreading my statement. I said "Indus river basin" not originating place of the Indus river. A river basin is different from a single river. I sincerely hope you can look it up in the atlas or map and find that most of the waters of the indus basin flows through india before reaching Pakistan. A series of dams would be enough to block the flow, thus starving pak agriculture. Elementary, my dear friend. As for "central asia" link, afghanistan, the sole country u mistakenly believe as "central asia" even isn't Central Asia by any standards (unless maybe the UNESCO view, which anyway puts north india as central asia). Afghanistan is in south asia so, again I find you unloading the same unverified tosh in here.
- I believe that India might not lose a ton of money by not moving goods to Afghanistan, not exactly a thriving economy and I should point that civil war exists in Pakistan too. Infact it was a civil war in 1971 that led to Pakistan losing a border with Burma. It was mainly because your leaders, like you now, failed to appreciate the geographic and linguistic diversity and paid the ultimate price by surrendering East Pakistan. A border, One lakh soldiers and half the nation gone in less than a fortnight. Please take time to read history and strategy of warfare amidst others before jumping in here with dubious statements. --Idleguy 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
First im no fried of yours, so please dont call me such, Second Pakistan has the largest irrigation system in the world, so this notion of a "starving pak agri" is just laughable. Third the partition of India caused India to loose its borders with Iran and Afghanistan and robbed your country of a border with these emerging regions ie Middle east (Iran) and C.ASIA. Also "It was mainly because your leaders, like you now, failed to appreciate the geographic and linguistic and religious diversity and paid the ultimate price by having thier country partitioned. Two borders, 1 million dead Hindus and sikhs and half the nation gone in less than a fortnight."
You should read history and see why your country was partitioned and salami sliced by Pakistan movement and why the British successfully midwifed the birth of Pakistan.
- )
Idleguy; look at this Partition of India , see why your country was dismembered/partitioned. It was because people like you were unwilling to extend minorities thier rightful rights.
- The Partition was done by the British before independence and wasn't due to a war with the nation's arch rivals after it's establishment as a modern state. There is an ocean of difference between having a foreign government doing the partition and a native government losing its territories despite having an army of the "pure". Maybe the failure to grasp such fundamentals is the reason why Pakistan Army has lost territory it held from East Pakistan to Siachen to Kargil. And don't use "your country" as if Pakistan just dropped from the skies one fine morning; before independence this region (British India/Raj) was actually "your country" too. And it was, ironically, "your country" that was partitioned as well with a million muslims dead. If anything both sides suffered and ended up with casualties and a lasting mutual hatred much to the advantage of the British. The "India" you say (British India) included a lot of modern day countries including Burma so what difference does it make to the Republic of India if they werent part of it when the nation became sovereign? So don't sound silly with history and using low-minded words like "salami slicing" only portrays your insensitiveness to the human tragedy of partition that affected people of different religions. And the partition wasn't completed in "in less than a fortnight" as you falsely believe!!! That is the kind of half baked historical knowledge you possess about "your country".
- That you still believe Afghanistan to be in Central Asia amuses me. :-) You also don't seem to grasp the difference between a current situation and what if scenario. So you might never understand the concept of control of rivers and the waters until a blockade happens or more dams are constructed. I could suggest you read up on this issue (and a lot others as well) but I would only be wasting time because you wouldn't see the light of it anyway.
- btw, if you have anything to add/edit on the article do it there instead of just debating here with me or others. You can't change history by claiming that losing most of the Kashmir region is actually a victory. I hope you can stop this and edit the article if possible, because this isn't a forum. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox The talk page is only for discussing the article's edits. Any further replies not directly related to the 47 war article will be ignored. --Idleguy 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Very simple, before the Pakistani forces went in to liberate Kashmir, the whole of it was going to be usurped by India. However after the action was taken, a great chunk of it was lopped off and it became a part of Pakistan instead of India. A war was won and now we have IdleGuys here trying to ignore history by burying their heads in the sand. If that makes you feel better then hey go ahead and enjoy this blissful state of ignorance.WasimKhan80 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So the war was a Pakistani invasion of India then? If you claim to have won the war because you captured territory then you must accept the fact that J&K was really part of India. If J&K should be part of Pakistan, then India has won, because its occupied all this land that should be in Pakistan. Seriously though, it was a stalemate because neither sides military ambitions came to their full fruition. Mike Young 23:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Pro-Indian Bias
This article like any other article related with India and Pakistan is biased. It seems, it is written by an official historian of Government of India, with a very poor command over history and language.
There is a need to fix this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.27.8 (talk • contribs)
- User:Mike Young was the person who wrote this primarily and he is clearly not Indian.--Idleguy 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
To be bias you do not have to be an Indian, any one can be biased. The problem is that some people have monopolised these pages and they think that they own these pages. If they want they can have their personal websites and do whatever they want.
Maakhter 09:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest you stop your rant until you can provide coherent arguments, and clear, specific points. Yelling "biased" while providing no reason just makes your claims dubious. Thank you. --Ragib 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of curiosity and I'm fairly neutral here (atheist UK citizen not of Indian or Pakistani descent) the article says that Kashmir was invaded by tribals and the Pakistani army at the time of the British withdrawal at which time, the Maharaja "decided to accede Kashmir to secular India" prompting India to send troops to the region. The Maharaja appears to have accepted joining the Inian Union as the only way he could retain some limited control of the province. The maps used although fairly crude IMO (sorry but perhaps you could overlay it on a map of the area?) seem to suggest that the Indians once airlifted into the capital managed to hold it and only push a little beyond it. Under the UN settlement Pakistan was allowed to keep what it had captured in it's initial push and India was granted the greater part of the province including apparently "the most populous and fertile regions." I wouldn't call this a Pakistani victory insomuch as they failed in their aim to capture the whole region but they did succeed in holding what they had taken once the Indian troops arrived. The Indians however succeeded in gaining control of the "more fertile regions" and the capital and keeping it. Neither side in my opinion won or lost the war because it ended in stalemate (my POV). Peraps the only real losers are those who lived and still live in the area who have had to bear the brunt of the cost, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc... Saying one side or another won or lost is purely someone's own opinion and has a place in discussion pages like these.
Oh and "Many of the invading muslims soldiers also indulged in acts of sabotage, arson and rape of Kashmiris."??? umm I'm not too sure about Wikipedia rules at this stage, but I find this really does not fit with the whole mood of the article and feels like someone added it at a later stage and that it should get removed. I find it really, really hard to believe that all the Indian soldiers were perfect little angels and that it was only the Muslims who engaged in such activities. Blatantly biased addition anyone?? 10:30AMish (melbourne, australia time xD) 02-may-2007
- Indians may not be angels, but that is not the point here. The sources, both independent and Pakistani clearly mention that only the pakistani-backed tribals indulged in such acts. Do you find it really, really that hard to believe that even with sources that only the muslims indulged in such activities? I hope people would read the sources before reporting in here. Thanks. Idleguy 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV dispute
I believe that this article has a clear and consistent pro-Indian bias. For example:India's army "recovers" 2/3 of Kashmir while Pakistan's army "captures" the other 1/3. While the information on this page is good, it is seriously lacking a respectable explaination of the Pakistani POV of the war. The section of the article "Stages of the War" is written exclusively from the POV of India's tactical perspective. Oleanna1104 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The picture at the start is the proff of the fact that the page is biased, "Indian soldiers surrounding an enemy position". Also," muslims raped kashmiries. It was the kashmiri tribe people who stood against india. At another place, "Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered". The number of casulaties were 1500-5000 for the pakistani army at start, so, the uncertanity is 300%. Eventhough, Pakistani army and tribes, starting from zero, occupied 2/5th of kashmir, despite being clear victory they surred 5 times more casulaties than indians. Strange, is't it? What else can prove that the article is not biased.
I agree there are several NPOV issues here that must be addressed. This article claims to be military history and is admirably written at times but there is a quite clear Pro-Indian feel. 2:01 PM (GMT +10)
- True there are some POV issues at some areas, but to assume that everything is pro-Indian is not entirely correct for many of these casualty figures and statements are backed by multiple sources. Even Pakistani authors have not failed to comment on the rape, looting and arson indulged by the lashkar in 1947 (source provided). So please go through the sources before raising it here. Idleguy 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge
This page should be merged with Indo-Pakistani Wars.
There are several reasons to merge this page:
1- Indo-Pakistani Wars and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.
2- These pages have a large overlap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.27.8 (talk • contribs)
- Indo Pakistani wars refers to all the wars and each war has its own cause and results and any person with a good grasp of history should tell you that everything is related but different. Idleguy 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok ive just delete a part of the article until someone does a complete revert: reasons, someone decided to delete the part regarding pakistans victories, and left the indian victories listed.
some really shamless people on wiki, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.244.12 (talk • contribs)
- Please don't blank sections to make your point. There was never a section regarding pakistan victories nor was/is there one for the Indian victories. Idleguy 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Strange, that, Im postitive there was a line in the article something along the lines of 'due to pakistans military victories it was able to capture 2/5 of kashmir' the Indian victories are listed aswell as even a picture of Indian troops at a so called "pakistani position" most likely it was a position of kashmiri army, but no picture of pakistani troops over running Indian troops?
Idleguy, as a man of fairness, free from prejeduice, bias, and free from anykind of ulterior motives surely you agree that there should be a picture of pakistani troops aswell?
Not to mention EVERY SINGLE SOURCE IS Indian
“Operations In Jammu and Kashmir 1947-1948” Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Thomson Press (India) Limited. New Delhi 1987. This is the Indian Official History, and was the major source for this work. (Indian source)
“The Indian Army After Independence”, by KC Praval, 1993. Lancer International, 1-897829-45-0
“Slender Was The Thread: The Kashmir confrontation 1947-1948”, by Maj Gen LP Sen, 1969. Orient Longmans Ltd New Delhi. (Indian source)
“Without Baggage: A personal account of the Jammu and Kashmir Operations 1947-1949” Lt Gen. E. A. Vas. 1987. Natraj Publishers Dehradun. ISBN 81-85019-09-6. (Indian Source)
Other Sources
“The Indian Armour: History Of The Indian Armoured Corps 1941-1971”, by Maj Gen Gurcharn Sandu,
(Indian source)
1987, Vision Books Private Limited, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7094-004-4.
(Indian source)
“Thunder over Kashmir”, by Lt Col Maurice Cohen. 1955 Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad
(Indian source)
“Battle of Zoji La”, by Brig Gen SR Hinds, Military Digest, New Delhi, 1962. “History of Jammu and Kashmir Rifles (1820-1956)”, by Maj K Barhma Singh, Lancer International New Dehli, 1990, ISBN 81-7062-091-0.
(yet MORE,.. Indian sources)
So not a single Neutral or Pakistani source? Or even a single Pakistani picture?
We all know India has won all its wars with all its neighbours, 1947/8, 1962, 1965, 1971, 1984,1998 ,1999, With over half dozen decisive Indian victories in wars with Pakistan and China, and Indian Nuclear weapons, Surely it wouldnt be out of place to have atleast one or maybe two neutral sources? maybe then if Indian military might allows we can add one pakistani source, and If Indian military prowness allows we perhaps one day can have a pakistani picture.
81.153.244.12 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Man of peace
- Ah, that line (not section) "Pakistan's victories" was probably wrongly worded. Equally wrong was that there was a version about "Indian victories" in the same vein. The reason: gaining only 2/5 of a territory is hardly a victory by any standards. If anything India's majority gains of 3/5 over kashmir should be a "victory" by this token. Both aren't fully true. So both stand removed since neither managed to a victory over the entire Kashmir. Instead a different approach has been taken that conveys who controls how much and so on.
- As for the sources, the article was primarily written by User:Mike Young (a British national) who used many Indian sources. It so happens that a lot of information, books and articles on the 47 war is largely from India. Few, if any, were from neutral sources and hardly any from Pakistan that I have come across. An article in Pakistan's military journal, DefenceJournal states the same issue on Pakistan and its three wars "No free analysis of any of these three wars have been possible as regrettably, no information of any political or military importance has been released by the Government of Pakistan to either researchers or analysts. This, despite the fact that the Government of India has made most of its official records, including War Diaries and Action Reports, available to Indian researchers and writers, who were consequently able to write a large number of books concerning those wars. Not all of them very complimentary for the Indian higher ups. However, for some reasons known only to the military authorities, in Pakistan we have jealously guarded all important information necessary to any sensible analysis of those wars, particularly the last two." That from the horse's mouth that few records exists on wars fought by Pakistan. While doing research on the Kargil War, the same problem persisted. While India had done an official commission on the war apart from an internal review of the armed forces, both published in the media, Pakistan hadn't produced any. That being the case, it would be impossible to expect Pakistani sources for the different wars.
- Regarding the photo issue, it was uploaded by someone who might have access to the images from Indian Military and nothing is stopping you or anyone from finding ones from Pakistan Army and uploading the same. If you could get some of Pak Army - with a free to use tag - it would be nice. However, I'll make the corrections regarding the image description in the article but there wasn't any "Kashmir army", only tribals/lashkar since Kashmir officially chose to joing India and therefore the official "Kashmir army" couldn't have fought on Pakistan's side. Idleguy 09:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Im glad most last comment helped refresh your memory vis-via the Pakistani victories being removed, However I daresay that the Indian victories are still listed, "On the use of armour The use of light tanks and armoured cars was important at two stages of the war. Both of these Indian victories involved very small numbers of AFVs. These were:-", Surely the Indian victories should also be removed as the Pakistani victories sentence was also removed. In fairness, neither side secured a decisive victory, So 'Indian victory' sentence should also be removed since we are taking "a different approach".
As for Neutral sources, how about Global security, FAS, or onwar.com.
As for Pakistani sources how about defencejournal.com, pakdef.info,
Regarding the photo issue, thank you for making the edit, it was strange that it was titled 'Indian troops over-run Pakistani position', If you look closely at the picture the so-called "Pakistanis" look very, very ill-equiped, had they been Pakistani troops they would have been equiped EXACTLY the same as the Indian troops both armies consisted of British Indian military units. Most likely as I mentioned they were tribals or somekind of local milita .Its a pity that wikipedians left the tag the way it was without looking at the picture carefully, such carelessness ammounts to propaganda and wiki is not the place for that.
One other thing, I think we should have a section regarding the British role in the conflict, Both India and Pakistan had 'white' British COAS, Both refused to fight against the other beliving it to be a war between Brit officers, This also prevented each side from achieving a decisive victory, Many in Pakistan believe British helped India invade Kashmir, and many in India believe the British helped Pakistan invade Kashmir. So I think the British role in the conflict surely deserves a mention.
Ironic is it not? That the British officers of the Indian and Pakistan armies rufused outright to fight against another, yet encouraged Hindu-muslim strife, rioting, and played a key role in ensuring hatred, and future wars. I hope both sides learn from mistakes of playing into colonial hands.
86.131.121.178 10:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Man of peace
- I think you may be reading that out of context. The two "Indian victories" it was referring to wasn't the war but rather specific instances/battles of the war. Please read the section thoroughly. As for the sources, the said sources aren't really thorough about this war as is thought. I have gone through some of them previously like onwar.com etc. and many lack operational and tactical details as in this articles. the maps contained herein are the most detailed I have seen. And if you noticed what I had written about Pakistani sources, or the lack of it, the websites seem to be the only resource and since this war has so many loopholes in missing information it will take time to improve this article. But I will see what I can do to improve this and include more neutral/pakistani sources. Idleguy 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Territiorial changes
You have
- India captures roughly 101,387 km of Kashmir while the regions of Azad Kashmir (13,350km) and Northern Areas (27,991km) are held by Pakistan
There is a controversy as to if J&K was part of Pakistan invaded by India or part of India invaded by Pakistan, The above statement is Pro Pakistani.
How about
- India holds 101,387 km of Kashmir. Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir (13,350km) and Northern Areas (27,991km) ?
Will change if no comments in the next few days Mike Young 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way the area of Northern areas is 72496 KM2
INDIAN PROPANGANDA
This article is clearly written by Indian propangandists trying to underscore Pakistan’s military successes. NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI WAR PICTURE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.92.54 (talk • contribs)
YES, VERY NEUTRAL. LOL.
- there is hardly any picture in the entire article. Ok, one does exist but it shows both Indian and Pakistani (dead) troops. So I don't understand what you intend to say. Idleguy 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The truth is that there was hardly any media presence during this war, specially on the Pakistani side.
British Officers
I was interested by the allegation ('may have') British officers helped Pakistani militants plan the attack. Nothing else I've read on this subject has mentioned it. It seems counterintuitive considering the official British position was to constrain any conflict between Pakistan and India. If someone can't supply a citation, it should probably be removed, and even if it does, the summary of the whole conflict is the wrong place.Agema 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Few Things
Few Things Even a blind person can see that the article is biased. The author has used all Indian sources. I gauss he thinks that there is no Pakistani source, but he will find many, he just needs to open his eyes.
• The picture at the very beginning tells the wholes story, where Pakistani soldiers are shown dead and the “Brave Indian” soldiers are standing beside them. There would be hundreds of pictures of the 1947 war, but why only this picture was selected? This picture makes you to fell that you are reading an Indian article.
• The official stand of Pakistani government has always been that Kashmir belong to Kasmiries and they should be given the “Right of self determination” through a referendum under UN”. Here it is written that Pakistan says that as Kashmir is a Muslim state so it belongs to Pakistan. So, please read something before writing, or do not bother to write.
• “Many of the invading Muslims soldiers also indulged in acts of sabotage, arson and rape of Kashmiries In the Punch valley the Jammu and Kashmir state forces retreated into towns and were besieged.” “Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered”. What else you need to present to prove that the article belongs to INDIAN.
• “(1,500 - 5,000 killed) Pakistani army”. This is what is at the start (the source of course is Indian), well 300% uncertainty. What’s this? Later it is mentioned that both sides suffered 1500 casualties —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.95.151.127 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Er, this is a Wikipedia article: It does not have a single author. Mike Young 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sources vary when giving figures of Pakistani casualties, for Pakistan Govt. has a habit of not disclosing their real losses. To date, no mention of an official casualty list has been prepared by the Pakistan state even for Kargil War, so it's too much to expect them to provide details on the 47 war. Also read up on the two-nation theory and its role in the Kashmir crisis before posting in the talk page. Further, there aren't "hundreds" of pictures from this war, at least not freely available pictures; if anyone finds anything related to this war, please upload it with the right tag. Idleguy 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about the two nation theory. Yes, according to the two nation theory the Muslim states belong to Pakistan. But for you information, after the UN resolution on Kashmir that gave Kashmiries the right to decide their future, the official stand of Pakistani government has changed. Pakistan has always talked about the implementation of UN resolution. That is why Azad Kashmir, which which is under Pakistani control, has its constitution, president and prime minister, only currency and defence is controlled by Pakistan. And for your information, the official figures of Pakistani casulatied in Kargil are that 357 Pakistani soldiers were killed and 665 wounded. This is what claimed officially by Pakistani government and written by the Musharraf in his book “In the line of fire”.
- Why not read up further on the UN resolution on the referendum, where it states Pakistan has to vacate its troops first before the next step comes into place. Perhaps Pakistan conveniently ignores this, therefore the whole world just ignores the empty claims by Pakistan. And oh, personal statements made in one's
autobiographymemoirs (and that too conveniently in a Hindi version) don't constitute the official casualty figures of the state. If that were the case, then ex-PM Sharif's statements would have to be considered more "official". Idleguy 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be rewritten
The article has a biased point of view and lacks context. There's too much reliance on Indian sources. But then, the begin comments are anti-Indian. The military history part is excellent. However, IMHO all discussions of wars should provide some understanding of the socio-political impacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleted erroneous comment
The Cause section had this statement... "However at the time of British withdrawal the state was invaded by tribals from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and regular Pakistani soldiers. The Maharaja then decided to accede Kashmir to secular India, which promptly sent troops into Kashmir and thus started a war."
This contradicts itself by saying that Pakistan invaded Kashmir and then that India started the war.
To correct this error I removed the following, "and thus started a war"
Ofhistoricalnote 09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Size of pics
Have re-extended size of pics, course of war is difficult to follow without referring to the maps, it is therefore better to keep these readable, rather than having to click through as you read. Wikipedia is not paper. Mike Young (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Maps
One of the things missing from the maps is a legend that explains the colors and the "borders". I realize this is a sensitive issue, but it needs to be addressed to take into account both the pre and post war situations, otherwise there is little help for the new reader. I think the prewar state of Kashmir and Jammu needs to be indicated, and the post war line of control that divides the Indian and Pakistan administered areas of Kashmir. If the pre war NWFP is indicated on the map, it should be labelled. Who can help with this?Vontrotta (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- B-Class India articles
- Unknown-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class Pakistan articles
- Mid-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- C-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles