Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts

Results column to reflect Same Results as in the respective Main article

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

---

I see there is an effort to rectify the content in the results section and I think more work needs to go in this direction. All the conflicts sections should be updates to reflect their current statues or statues as reached by consensus on the conflict pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calore123, DBigXray, and Sdmarathe: Can we please discuss this here and not constantly revert. Please present what you think is incorrectly represented on the page because I feel we are arguing over semantics. Also, some of the statuses (conflict results) here are incorrectly represented (IMO) compared to the actual conflict pages. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To me one editor is constantly edit warring here and there. Anyway, whether the main article says something else or not, it is not really a matter especially when the results are apparently correct and longstanding. I would better think of changing the main article results to avoid this confusion and yes I am saying that we need to focus on what is correct. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not blaming one editor over the other, but simply wish to reach a consensus here. Results here should reflect the one's on each conflict's main page. The statuses for each conflict were reached by great deliberation on their respective talk pages so as far as Wikipedia is concerned they are correct (not what we think is correct in our mind). The scope of discussion on this page is to correctly reflect the statuses of these conflicts as they occur on their respective pages not to deliberate if they are correct or not. If you feel (or anyone else feels) that they have been incorrectly represented on their conflict pages then please feel free to open a discussion on those talk pages. Those discussions are beyond the scope of this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Adamgerber80 May I know what is the dispute about ? lines showing current and proposed version in the beginning of the section would be helpful for all. --DBigXray 12:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently it seems we have people arguing over Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. One editor places it as Ceasefire and the other as Armistice. I propose we replace this with what is reflected in the conflict page infobox. Namely,

"Inconclusive; United Nations mandated ceasefire.

Both sides claim victory

No permanent territorial changes (see Tashkent Declaration)."

This is just one issue. There are others. For example, Afghan Civil War which is incorrect based on the conflict infobox. Another is the multitudes of First Balochistan Conflict, Second Balochistan Conflict all the way to Fifth Balochistan Conflict which all point to Insurgency in Balochistan. So I am unclear how did the a Insurgency in Balochistan (which is ongoing) get split into multitudes of smaller conflicts. And if it did why don't they have their separate articles?

We can discuss all of these separately but there are other such issues on this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the table result section should be same as result section of the infobox of the respective war pages. any row not having its own article page should be merged and the results should be as per the infobox. There is no justification for keeping a discrepancy between the Main article and this table. The wordings of the Infobox result page in the article page are already after much debate and as per WP:CONSENSUS, Let me know what is your solution. --DBigXray 18:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have now changed results of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 per reliable sources and expect no reverts unless someone has clear rebuttal. thanks! Sdmarathe (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: I have reverted your edit on that page since it needs consensus first. I have also initiated a discussion so you can reply there. Also, this discussion is only about depicting the results as they occur in the conflict infoboxes and not about updating them. Any update requires a distinct discussion on the respective article talk page. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I concur with your observation. This also needs to be reflected in the List of wars involving India (which needs a separate discussion on that talk page). There are other issues here for example, Soviet–Afghan War which does not show Pakistan as a party to the conflict but is still reflected here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind reply, No a seperate discussion will not be needed for Indian War list page, Just a section with Wikilink pointing to this should be ok.Based on the discussion above I am claiming WP:Consensus among all of us as below. --DBigXray 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

The table result section should be exactly the same as result section of the infobox of the respective war pages. Any row not having its own article page should be merged and the results should be as per the infobox. No War can be Added if it does not have its own Main page article
— User:DBigXray, Adamgerber80 and Sdmarathe support this Consensus, 11 June 2018

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

Indo-Pakistani Wars Result

The Result section for the war wrongly states that it's ongoing. Whereas it has actually ended. rationalwikiuser 00:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

42.201.170.219 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (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. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Please change in the 2019 India Pakistan clash that India acknowledges that one of it's Mig-21 planes has crashed and the pilot was taken captive. Currently the grammar is improper "one of it's plane" and lacks information on the plane. Also the Mig-21 has only 1 pilot, and both Pakistan and India acknowledge that 1 pilot is captive. REJ17 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Biased sentence

"Most of these wars and conflicts, despite being initiated by Pakistan, have ended up with defeat or disaster for Pakistan" - Heavily biased sentence. Can we please have some NPOV and factual statements within this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.249.173 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that highly undiplomatic language have been used in the reference. But a more diplomatic source will have to introduced before the removal of current one.

Besides the language, there is no way the article can be "biased". Because the "unbiased" sources don't suggest any different things here. Indo Pakistani conflicts have not been very favorable for Pakistan. Writers while writing their articles have a poetic approach of framing their sentences and that's why they put it as "disaster". IMHO, a more diplomatic and humble set of words can be chosen while source being same.. But reference shouldn't be removed if an alternative can't be provided. Please, contemplate here in talk first before removing or modifying it again. Regards Aman Goel (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Map

The map in the Background section wrongly shows the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir as disputed. This is incorrect only partial areas of the state are disputed between India and Pakistan and China. Can we please remove the image or have a correct one in its place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.16.97 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire Kashmir region is disputed. It is claimed in its entirety by India; it is claimed in all but its entirety by Pakistan, which however does accept the sovereignty of China (PRC) over the Trans Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin. In those regions however, India and China have a dispute. As you probably know, it (i.e. Kashmir) is the oldest dispute before the UN. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Problematic sentence in the lead

The sentence in the lead, "Most of these wars or conflicts ended in disaster or defeat for Pakistan," is imprecise, unencyclopedic, and false. 1947 and 1965 have been widely considered to have been stalemates. It is true that Pakistan's goals in both were thwarted, but disaster or defeat mean something else. Please see: Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-939588-0 describing 1965 as a stalemate. 1947, which ended in UN intervention and a de facto division of Kashmir with Pakistan holding on to a third, is again not exactly a disaster. I am removing that sentence from the lead. There is no need to replace it with something "diplomatic" as has been suggested. For no Wikipedia guideline conflates diplomatic language and encyclopedic language. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"defeat or disaster", not "disaster or defeat". Stephen P. Cohen spent essentially his entire career studying the India-Pakistan conflicts. Nobody can say he is not well-qualified to make such judgements.

I have transcluded at the top, a discussion from another list of wars page, where the editors decided that they will keep all these lists faithful to the main articles. A perfectly reasonable position in my view. So, if you want to contest the result of Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, please go to its talk page.

I note here that Christine Fair is not saying that the 1965 war ended in a stalemate. She said some unnamed "scholars" said so. Then she spent an entire paragraph to explain that, even if they said it, it wasn't true. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

DearFowler, don't misrepresent sources. Just because you believe that India was not the winner of 1965 war it doesn't means that we would ignore academic sources. In place of edit warring you can start an WP:RFC and see how that goes.Aman Goel (talk) 08:14 UTC, March 24, 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyways, if we'd be using the same reasoning here. Those "widespread" sources aren't neutral. There is no single neutral source that could suggest that Pakistan had upper hand in any war or even matched the gains. Even if I was not from India, my response would have been same. India was bigger and always had advantage because of its size. In case, the objective of your operation isn't fulfilled, you can't say that you won it. In first Kashmir war, Pakistan incurred heavy losses against a force on Kashmir which entered the region much later. In 1965, it initiated a war to capture Kashmir but ended up defending Lahore. The civil war in Eastern Pakistan leading to secession of largest province after Indian intervention was obviously an ultimate disaster as it left Pakistan no longer a regional power. If East Bengal was a part of Pakistan today, it would have doubled economy, much expanded military budget and economy, world's third most populated country and a G20 major economy. Actually, Pakistan was growing along with Asian tigers, much faster than China and India at that time. But the episode changed its fate forever. It was from getting weakened economically, militarily and diplomatically to weakened morales of people and instability of regime. It simply changed its future in a disastrous way. In Kargil conflic, Pakistan captured Kargil but lost it very soon after Indian reaction. Lot of casualties in Pakistan got uncovered which are now being released lately. Yeah, 1965 and 1999 are sometimes celebrated by Pakistani defense enthusiasts as Pakistan could give a significant unexpected damage to India. Being neutral, Pakistan has done a commendable work by standing and surviving against a much bigger potential existential threat. But for the results of wasn't ever in its favour. Accounts who suggest Pakistan won or scored a stalemate in 1948, 1965 or 1999 are quoting totally random blogs. We should come up with a source and explanation too. Unless your purpose is served or even partially served, you will deemed as "defeated". Best Regards I repeat, don't revert the current reference unless there is a contradictory academic source. Aman Goel (talk) 09:45 UTC, March 24, 2019 —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No WP guideline considers lifelong effort to be a such benchmark of reliability or due weight as to merit direct edits into a lead. The version to which I restored the lead had been the WP:STATUSQUO version for many years. Your own edit of July 2018 was faithful to it. The errant sentence, which was added directly into the lead by IPs or redlinked users, did not constitute a summary of this article's main body, nor was it a statement about the Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. It was not accompanied by concomitant discussion on this talk page, let alone any achieved consensus. A major value laden judgment on the success or failure of four wars cannot be directly edited into the lead—no matter how prodigious the number or fame of the sources mustered in its favor—without a separate section in the page about the diversity of such judgments. PS The author C. Fair very clearly did say what I quote her as saying, which is, "On September 20, 1965, with the war rapidly approaching a stalemate, the UNSC passed a resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have just read the quote from Stephen Cohen which has been cited in the lead. (See: Cohen, Stephen P. (2013), Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum, Brookings Institution Press, p. 129, ISBN 978-0-8157-2187-1) It is incorrectly cited. It says:

"Their first war was purposeful: Pushtun raiders sent by the NWFP government invaded Kashmir. The incursion was met with an innovative Indian response, resulting in a military stalemate and a series of unsuccessful attempts to negotiate peace. India's encroachment on territory held by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in 1962 was also purposeful, as was Pakistan's probe in Kutch and in Kashmir in 1965, and its 1999 Kargil gambit. Several near-wars were also purposeful: India's Brasstacks exercise was intended to provoke a Pakistani response, which in turn was to have led to a decisive Indian counterattack. One could add to this list India's seizure of the heights of the Siachen Glacier. Most of these operations ended in defeat or disaster."

In other words, in his judgment of defeat or disaster Cohen is including Indian operations as well. It is not just about Pakistan. I'm afraid, I am now more certain that errant sentence has to go. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now also examined the second source cited in the lead sentence in question. George Perkovitch does say on page 479, "The Kargil war ended, as had previous wars, with an Indian victory." However, he is not including the 1947 war in this judgment. For he refers to the 1947 conflict only in a footnote on page 517:

"Events continued with Pakistan dispatching regular forces into Jammu and Kashmir to solidify a hold on the western part of the state. India countered with army troops, and war ensued. Ultimately the United Nations brokered an agreement to end the fighting. Two resolutions—one of August 13, 1948, the second of January 6, 1949—called for a cease-fire, a truce, and a plebiscite. The cease-fire was effected as of January 1, 1949. The truce has not been formally implemented to this day. Nor has a plebiscite been held."

That is not a judgment of Indian victory. Again, it seems that neither source has been accurately cited, one falsely cited, the other cited without context. @Aman.kumar.goel: please remove the errant sentence from the lead. Please do not change the sources. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fowler&fowler, The sentence you quote from Christine Fair (which is in Chapter 6) is also postfixed by the rider: India conceded, but on political, not military, grounds: it could have sustained the conflict and turned the stalemate into an outright victory. So, I don't think she is saying anything definitive one way or another about the 1965 war.
• Coming back to the lead sentence, I agree that the phrase "for Pakistan" has been added, which wasn't in Cohen's text. I think he is saying that the Indian efforts were also met with some kind of strategic failure if not defeat. So, I agree that the lead sentence should be removed.
• Aman.kumar.goel, the fact that India is larger in size does not necessarily translate into military victories. India does not have a national consensus to impose defeats on Pakistan. Neither does it try to translate its size into a military superiority. Pakistan spends proportionately more on defence and also builds strategic alliances which translate into military strength. So, on the whole the two countries are fairly evenly matched. See for instance:

• Paul, T. V. (2005), "Causes of the India–Pakistan enduring rivalry", in Paul, T. V. (ed.), The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–26, ISBN 978-0-521-67126-2

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Kautilya3:. For future reference why don't I rummage through some sources and their judgments on the outcomes of 1947 and 65. Will do so in a section below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's an utter misinterpretation again. The source:

  One could add to this list India's seizure of the heights of the Siachen Glacier. Most of these operations ended in defeat or disaster.

  Including the above mentioned Siachen conflict to the other wars, no war has ended up against the favour of India. So, in case you have to quote "failures of Indian operations as well", there have to be any. From the other you provided:

  To that end, Pakistan initiated three wars over Kashmir-in 1947, 1965, and 1999-and failed to win any of them.

   :*July 2018 is long gone. So the version that is standing for nearly 1 year is the STATUSQUO. No one has removed the lead until now except those SPAs who have no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless Fowler discover sources saying that "Pakistan didn't lost most wars" then we will see. As of now, there is no strong case for removal. I would support changing the sentence but not removing it. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD it is necessary to mention that Pakistan lost the wars. Enough reliable sources support that Pakistan in fact lost all wars including the 1947-1948 one:

"In that region, there is a bitter legacy of three wars between the Indians and the Pakistanis.... The legacy of three lost wars is humiliating to the Pakistanis," By Kenneth W. Thompson, University Press of America, 1993, p. 97.

""they have lost every single war with India", Marine Corps University Journal, Government Printing Office, p.41.

"which has lost every war it fought against archrival India," by W. W. Norton & Company, p. 72.

Above took me only a few minutes to find. I can find in fact more but our point is that mention of Pakistan losing all or most wars in WP:DUE and complies with WP:LEAD. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:It is unimportant how many minutes it took you. The preexisting citations in the lead sentence were inaccurate. The sentence was introduced on the basis of those citations. For that reason, I will shortly remove the sentence. A new sentence, whether it is necessary and what its language should be, has to be established anew on this page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears as if you are gaming the system at this stage by removing the long standing sentence after pointing out a very minor problem with the long-term sourced addition just for pushing your narrative as also seen below. I strongly remind you of WP:RGW. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Lead must include the fact that Pakistan lost these wars as supported by the sources provided by Aman goel above and in the section below. I support restoring the sentence on lead with a bit of modification. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Some scholarly sources on the outcome of the wars of 1947-48 and 1965

Listed below are fifteen (15) scholarly sources that make the case that the India-Pakistan wars of 1947 and 1965 were military stalemates. By "scholarly" I mean the university presses and in addition Routledge, Wiley, Palgrave, Springer, and Hurst. I have not included trade paperbacks published by Harper Collins, Vintage, and so forth. Here is the list, which I have collapsed on account of its length:

Fifteen scholarly sources on the outcome of the wars of 1947–48 and 1965

In Nayar, Baldev Raj; Paul, T. V. (2003), India in the World Order: Searching for Major-Power Status, Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–91, ISBN 978-0-521-52875-7 In regard to the element of exercising initiative in war-making, Pakistan launched the first violent conflict with India hardly three months after its creation in 1947 through supporting a tribal invasion of Kashmir and then directly participating in the consequent war with India. In the international negotiations at the UN over the war, Pakistan was able to get the support of the UK and the US; even though India retained nearly two-thirds of the state, the issue was not conclusively settled and remained a long-term cause for repeated future conflicts. About two decades later, Pakistan started armed skirmishes in the Rann of Kutch in order to test India's will and preparedness, and then induct-ed a massive force of commandos into Kashmir with the purpose of detaching that state from India; in the process, it precipitated the India—Pakistan War of 1965, the result of which was largely a military stalemate." In Chari, P R; Cheema, Pervaiz Iqbal; Cohen, Stephen P (2003), Perception, Politics and Security in South Asia: The Compound Crisis of 1990, Routledge, p. 41, ISBN 978-1-134-39680-1 Unlike 1947-8, the 1965 war was a short affair. The UN sponsored ceasefire became effective on September 23, 1965. Although both sides have since claimed victory in 1965, the war actually ended in a stalemate." In Snedden, Christopher (2015), Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, Hurst, pp. 267–, ISBN 978-1-84904-622-0 1. May 1948-1 January 1949: India-Pakistan war; limited to J&K; ended with United Nations' brokered ceasefire on 1 January 1949; result was indecisive, although J&K divided thereafter by the 1949 ceasefire line; war followed fighting that began in J&K soon after the British withdrawal in 1947, particularly in the Poonch area of Jammu Province where 'rebels' fought the forces of Maharaja Hari Singh, then Indian forces after he acceded to India on 26 October 1947; the war is dated from May 1948 because Pakistan's armed forces only then officially became involved in J&K. 2. 20 October-21 November 1962: China-India war; fighting in Aksai Chin and north-east India; China won decisively; took place before China-Pakistan relations became intimate. 3. August-22 September 1965: India-Pakistan war; instigated by subversives sent into J&K by Pakistan; fought in J&K and across the western India-Pakistan border; it followed some serious India-Pakistan skirmishing in the Rann of Kutch in March—April 1965; ceasefire declared after international pressure; result was a stalemate." In Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, Oxford University Press, pp. 14–, ISBN 978-0-19-989270-9 "Pakistan first tried to seize Kashmir in 1947. As British decolonization of South Asia loomed, the sovereign of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh, hoped to keep the country independent of either of the two new states, India or Pakistan. As Singh held out, marauders from Pakistan's tribal areas invaded the territory of Jammu-Kashmir in hopes of taking it for Pakistan and were supported extensively by Pakistan's nascent provincial and federal governments. This attack expanded into the first war between India and Pakistan. When it was over and the cease-fire line was drawn, Pakistan controlled about one-third of Kashmir, and India controlled the remainder. Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded." In Sisson, Richard; Rose, Leo E. (1991), War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh, University of California Press, pp. 8–, ISBN 978-0-520-07665-5 Similarly, the wars between India and Pakistan in 1947-49 and 1965 had been brought to a stalemate and mediated through international intervention." In Schofield, Julian (2007), Militarization and War, Initiatives in Strategic Studies: Issues and Policies, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 52, ISBN 978-1-137-07719-6 "India's curtailing of military influence was in part a response to the fear of a military coup, but the relative remoteness of South Asia to third-party balancers made reliance on diplomatic strategy and neglect of military means dangerous. India's nonmilitarization led it to a traumatic military defeat in 1962 at the hands of China, to defeat against Pakistan in 1965 at the Rann of Kutch, and to stalemate against Pakistan in September 1965." In Cohen, Stephen P. (2013), Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum, Brookings Institution Press, p. 129, ISBN 978-0-8157-2187-1) "Their first war was purposeful: Pushtun raiders sent by the NWFP government invaded Kashmir. The incursion was met with an innovative Indian response, resulting in a military stalemate and a series of unsuccessful attempts to negotiate peace. India's encroachment on territory held by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in 1962 was also purposeful, as was Pakistan's probe in Kutch and in Kashmir in 1965, and its 1999 Kargil gambit. Several near-wars were also purposeful: India's Brasstacks exercise was intended to provoke a Pakistani response, which in turn was to have led to a decisive Indian counterattack. One could add to this list India's seizure of the heights of the Siachen Glacier. Most of these operations ended in defeat or disaster." In Rudolph, Lloyd I.; Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (1987), In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State, University of Chicago Press, pp. 133–, ISBN 978-0-226-73139-1 "Under syndicate leadership, Congress ideology was more than ever perceived as empty rhetoric, mantras without meaning, repeated in manifestos and important party occasions. In Delhi, state capitals, and district towns, the politics of persons and factions crowded aside the politics of national purpose and high policy. The ground was being prepared for the electoral and organizational crises of 1967 and 1969, in the face of two consecutive bad monsoons (1965 and 1966), a draw in a major war with Pakistan (1965), and an unsuccessful devaluation (1966). In the fourth general election of 1967, Congress lost power in eight large states and almost did so nationally; two years later, it split for the first time." In Weeks, Jessica L. P. (2014), Dictators at War and Peace, Cornell University Press, pp. 77–78, ISBN 978-0-8014-5523-0 Table 3.5 War Name: First Kashmir War; Country: India; Leader: Nehru; War Began: 1947; Regime Type: Other; War Outcome: Lose. War Name: First Kashmir War; Country: Pakistan; Leader: Jinnah; War Began: 1947; Regime Type: Other; War Outcome: Win. War Name: Second Kashmir War; Country: India; Leader: Shastri; War Began: 1965; Regime Type: Democracy; War Outcome: Draw. War Name: Second Kashmir War; Country: Pakistan; Leader: Ayub Khan; War Began: 1965; Regime Type: Strongman; War Outcome: Draw" In Swami, Praveen (2006), India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004, Routledge, pp. 79–, ISBN 978-1-134-13752-7 "Although the war of 1965 had, in purely military terms, ended in a stalemate, its true meaning soon began to become evident to Pakistan's people. India now flatly asserted that the status of Jammu and Kashmir was non-negotiable. It was, quite clearly, unwilling to concede in peace what Pakistan had not been able to wrest through war. If, in 1947-1948, Pakistan had succeeded in winning a third of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir it was to come away from the 1965 conflict with nothing. Worse, from Pakistan's point of view, it had become clear that the alliances it had built over the past decade-and-a-half were of little practical value. China was unwilling to intercede militarily; the United States, for its part, had responded to the outbreak of hostilities by imposing an arms embargo on both India and Pakistan. In Dixit, J. N. (2003), India-Pakistan in War and Peace, Routledge, pp. 140–, ISBN 978-1-134-40758-3 "Though India claimed victory in the 1965 war, in purely operational and military terms it was a draw with no decisive military victory for either side. It was in politico-strategic terms and policy objectives that Pakistan was defeated. It was an incontrovertible fact that Pakistan initiated the conflict by organising first the massive tribal infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir under the covert invasion titled "Operation Gibraltar", and when it failed, deployed its regular army ..." In Dittmer, Lowell (2015), South Asia's Nuclear Security Dilemma: India, Pakistan, and China: India, Pakistan, and China, Routledge, pp. 114–, ISBN 978-1-317-45956-9 " In early 1965, after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, Pakistan organized a border incident in the Rann of Kutch, which was resolved in its favor. Emboldened, the Pakistanis authorized Operation Gibraltar, infiltrating troops across the border in hopes of raising up a popular revolt. These efforts failed, and escalated into a more conventional military conflict that ended in stalemate. The net result for Pakistan, however, was particularly poor—it not only failed to accomplish its political aims, but also lost the aid and support of its U.S. ally." In Batra, Amita (2012), Regional Economic Integration in South Asia: Trapped in Conflict?, Routledge, pp. 83–, ISBN 978-1-135-12983-5 "1948-49: The first full-scale conflict between the two countries happened over Kashmir within a year after the two countries gained independence. The war began in 1947 and ended in December 1948. A UN-brokered ceasefire went into effect on January 1, 1949. 1965: The two countries clashed again in 1965 over Kashmir. The war began in August 5, 1965, and ended in September 22, 1965, by which time it had reached a stalemate and the two sides agreed to a UN-mandated ceasefire. In Shekhawat, Seema (2014), Gender, Conflict and Peace in Kashmir: Invisible Stakeholders, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–, ISBN 978-1-139-91676-9 "India and Pakistan fought the second war in 1965. The Rann of Kutch issue preceded the outbreak of formal hostilities. ... In the first week of August 1965 under codename Operation Gibraltar the Pakistani military began infiltrating forces in Kashmir across the 470-mile-long Ceasefire Line. The first major engagement between regular armed forces of the two countries took place on 14 August 1965. India's early gains prompted Pakistan to mount Operation Grand Slam on 1 September to capture Akhnoor bridge and cut off supplies to the southwest of the Indian side of Kashmir. On 5 September 1965, the Pakistani army launched a major assault and penetrated 14 miles in J&K. Indian forces counter-attacked from Punjab and crossed the international border." By mid-September 1965, the war had reached a stalemate. The UNSC unanimously passed a resolution on 20 September 1965, calling for a ceasefire, which ended the impasse on 23 September 1965." In Bajwa, Farooq (2013), From Kutch to Tashkent: The Indo-Pakistan War of 1965, Hurst Publishers, ISBN 978-1-84904-230-7 "In summary, therefore, the war quickly became attritional with neither side able to deliver a knockout blow and a military stalemate ensuing after a few weeks of fierce fighting. One British magazine said after the second week of fighting that `it is not much of a war. Whether this is a result of political intent or military inefficiency is not clear' (The Economist, 18 September 1965). Although India was the eventual victor by the fact that it had a large number of troops inside substantial Pakistani territory, the US saw it as an 'uninspiring' victory as India, despite its much larger numbers and supplies, was unable to defeat Pakistan in any battle, except for holding the line in the crucial battle of Asal Uttar. Other than that, India's offensives generally failed and a combination of inexperience in large-scale battle manoeuvres and poor application meant that India's forces tended to resemble a large elephant—of an impressive size, but slow in responding and less effective on the battlefield than previously thought."

I have now added 15 sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

See WP:CHERRYPICKING. You mention Christine Fair, who actually says six decades despite the fact that Pakistan has either lost outright or failed to defeat India in every war they have fought.[1] at Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, p. 31. Aman Goel (talk) 14:54 UTC, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

"Pakistan as experienced in its lost wars with India in 1948, 1965, and 1971." Falling Terrorism and Rising Conflicts: The Afghan "Contribution" to Polarization and Confrontation in West and South Asia, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. -- Aman Goel (talk) 15:00 UTC, March 24, 2019

Failing to defeat India includes instances of stalemate. It does not constitute victory for India or defeat or disaster for Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Aman, you are doing the cherrypicking here. Its only one source vs many. AshLin (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fowler cites a source that actually says that Paksitan lost all wars or failed to defeat India. That's WP:CHERRYPICKING, to point out only the particular narrative which supports your POV from the same source. 03:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman.kumar.goel (talk • contribs)

I don't think it makes much sense to talk about the "result" of the 1947–48 war. Both India and Pakistan war British dominions, their armed forces were commanded by British officers and London was pulling the strings from behind the scenes. The "result" was as such what London could live with.

As for the 1965 war, there was a long-time consensus that it was a stalemate, but it seems to have been mostly based on the fact that Tashkent Agreement reverted to the status quo ante bellum and neither side was able to claim any advantage. The "fog of war" had lasted for a long time (as it usually does in all Indo-Pakistani conflicts). Nobody even knew what territory was gained or lost by the two sides. But when people drilled down into the details, they definitely saw the advantage India possessed, which it gave up voluntarily. Please see the discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The best commentary I have seen is this:

Most important, Shastri was honest and above board in peace as he had been in war, projecting India as a powerful but good neighbour instead of the intolerant, unbudgeable centre of the world.

If that is not victory then I don't know what is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm afraid I can't respond to your interpretations. The sources are clear. Both wars were military stalemates. That is Stephen Cohen's judgment as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:RGW, since that is exactly what you are doing. Also read WP:GEVAL. We are not going to create a false balance unless your "sources are clear" that Pakistan won this war. So far sources speak India won, not Pakistan. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make false allegations about what I am doing. I am a competent editor. I am the major contributor to the India page, as well as the author of its major sections, including history, in its FA runs. I am the major contributor to the Kashmir page. I know what scholarly consensus is, and the fifteen sources adduced above constitute a scholarly consensus that the war ended in a stalemate. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, if I went harsh. But you jumping from one side of argument to other yet staying rigidly on one line enraged me. Nevertheless, discussion can go in any direction, there was a key word "most" and not "all" for the battles involved inside wars. The "stalemate" you are talking about, I mentioned in one of my initial responses. It was "military damage" inflicted on India most certainly and not any other gains.

Your edits on other pages have no bearing on what you are doing here. If we look at your "fifteen" sources, we find enough of them to be about military damage and not actual victory. And finally none say Pakistan won. You need to understand the very basic that failure to achieve the purpose in the war is a defeat. I can write a line India won all wars or Pakistan lost most may be called undiplomatic and biased by you. But you can't put a line Pakistan won most or even Pakistan did not lose most of wars as that would clearly be contradicting sources. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. If the sentence "defeat or disaster" is offensive, there may be a mild sentence not ended up in favour Pakistan. But still it should be there as it provides summary of conflicts to the reader before he goes deep into article. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand. No source is saying the war ended in a Pakistani victory. They are saying that the two wars, of 1947-49 and 1965 ended in a military stalemate. They do not support a judgment of an Indian victory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree here with Kautilya3 and Aman Goel that sources exists for saying that India won the war and such number of sources are in fact huge in amount..It will depend on the consensus whether we need to include "stalemate" or "Indian victory" but there is no reason to ignore "Indian victory" which is a mainstream academic view of these wars. Current consensus supports Indian victory and a new consensus cannot be formed without an RFC. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• If the scholarly sources are "huge in amount," then it should be no problem finding them. Thus far there are only two or three scholarly ones (ie academic presses) that suggest this. I already have 15 above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And in fact that is the main point. Sources don't say Pakistan won the war, they say India won the war. Maybe not all of your sources say India won the war but there are tons of academic sources that certainly do, and Wikipedia needs to report that unless same number exists for claiming that Pakistan won the war which they clearly didn't. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Fowler - Since your only issue is that we can't find sources for supporting Indian victory then you must read Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox as already linked above by Kautilya3 on 17:24, 24 March 2019. More than a dozen high-quality source had been provided there which supports either Indian victory or decisive Indian victory. Like I said, there is no reason to omit that. Additionally the sources you cited even though list the war as ending in stalemate merely state so because both sides retreated to their earlier positions. That does not always mean one side did or did not win the war - just that both sides retreated because of Tashkent accord to maintain peace. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)