User talk:Tyler Durden

Archives

• Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hari Singh in Mirpur?

The massacres in the Jammu Province were characterised by their thoroughness, achieved by dint of the elaborate preparations that had gone before. In July 1947, large numbers of troops arrived in Mirpur and started irnparting military training to RSS men and to the Hindus and Sikhs who had infilterated into the Province. Firing was carried on in the ravines near Mirpur and could be heard every day by the people in the town. The villages in the vicinity were alarmed but when they expressed their fears to the District Magistrate, they were told that the RSS and the Singh Naujawan Sabhas were religious bodies and could not be interfered with. later the non-Muslins of the villages Ali Beg, Jattan, Pindi Sabbarwal, Samwal, among others, shifted to Mirpur town, the better to take part in the killings that followed.

@Kautilya3: Have a look at this. Also see a constable's account in pgs 268-270. Interesting. If its true, it says about the situation of police personnel (including the SSP) and the violence that had started during the Eid in 1947 (which was around 20 August) itself.

In Mirpur district, the Maharaja paid a visit on October 20th. He was accompanied by Dogra troops. The Maharaja ordered fire, whereupon armed mobs indulged in ruthless slaughter. Dogra troops and other lawless elements spread out into the district, specially in Tahsil Bhimbar, Manawar, Mirpur and Kotli, and massacred the Muslim population.

And can this be true? Particularly the timeline, is it possibly accurate? As I think, Hari Singh had lost control over Mirpur by then! — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The time of these events is around 20 October, which is documented in the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict. I believe the Eid was on 26 October, when the Pashtuns were supposed to have captured Srinagar (but they got stuck in Baramula instead). Did the State Forces arm and train the RSS volunteers? Very likely.

The situation at that time, from Karan Singh's memoirs and accepted by scholars, is that the Maharaja was losing control of the "border areas", most likely the Mirpur and Poonch districts, and there were raids on the Jammu and Kathua districts. That is why the Maharaja and Mahajan visited Jammu & Kathua districts, where the local Muslims are alleged to be helping the raiders. These were the Jammu massacres, which were unleashed by the Maharaja on down, the RSS, and possibly Akalis about whom we don't hear a whole lot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

So that's Bakrid. I thought its Eid al-Fitr. I was mistaken. :-P

And if those accounts are right, how were Hari Singh and his troops roaming around Mirpur on October 20 and spreading out into the district slaughtering Muslims, when they were actually losing control over the region? May be the accounts are incorrect. — Tyler Durden (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

He went to Bhimber, which is at the southern end of the Mirpur district. Please do read the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict where all the known facts are documented. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, if massacres occurred in Mirpur district also in the beginning, our Population figures section is partly incomplete, and further weak. It does not include Mirpur district. — Tyler Durden (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As you can tell, we can't tell very much from the census figures. I had it in mind to add this table to the article for a while. But the problem was finding the census figures for Muzaffarabad, which had included because we don't have district-wise figures for minorities in Azad Kashmir. More commentary still needs to be added, e.g., (a) the refugees that were present in the Azad Kashmir areas, who are not included in the census figures, and (b) the people killed in the Indian-controlled areas such as Rajouri and Baramulla. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:POINTy edits

Please see Asaduddin Owaisi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The new timeline

As early as 13 September, armed Pathans had drifted into Lahore and Rawalpindi, and some Swatis had crossed into the Vale. About a week later, according to a deputy commissioner of Dera Ismail Khan, a scheme was launched to send tribesmen from Malakand to Sialkot, in lorries provided by the Pakistan Government.[71: Stephens, Pakistan, 1967, p.200] The report also referred to preparations in early October by Swat, Dir, and Chitral to attack Kashmir from the north-west. The Wali of Swat, a developed state, was an ambitious man. He had sought the governorship of the NWFP. It was now believed that he had been promised Kashmir if he could seize it. Cunningham knew that he 'had put up a lot of money for expenses of the Kashmir campaign'.[72: Cunningham's Diary, 26 Oct. 1947] He noted, too, that the Pir of Wana had personally recruited thousands of Mahsuds.[73: Cunningham's Diary, 26 and 30 Oct. 1947] There is little doubt that at the time when the north-western offensive began, Pathans were active further south in raids all along the Punjab border, from the Indus to the Ravi. The Maharaja and his PM complained of raiding, looting, and burning from Kathua to Kotli.[74: Mahajan to Patel, 23 Oct. 1947, Das, i.64-6]. Beside the clashes between rebels and the State forces, and the incursions of the raiders, Punjabi refugees in Kashmir heightened the communal temperature.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Another thing worth noting from RJ Moore's timeline. Action was happening already on 13 September. Until recently, we were led to believe that Liaquat Ali Khan ordered an invasion on 12 September, and that he was reacting to appeals from the Muslim Conference. I am now beginning to think this meeting was a decoy. Akbar Khan got fooled and so did we. The invasion got ordered much earlier. The 12 September meeting was just for organising the Poonch rebellion. More on that later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Theory 1 was that the Poonchis went to NWFP for arms, and the Pashtuns heard about the atrocities committed agains them and spontaneously decide to invade Kashmir (all on the same day of course). There have always been significant number of British commentators who supported this theory.

The Theory 2 that has been propagated by whisle-blowing Pakistanis is that the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan ordered the invasion. A meeting on 12 September has been mentioned, where 3 plans were discussed, one to arm the Poonchis, one to organise Pashtun tribals, and the third to organise the former INA officers and other interested Pakistanis from Punjab.

The Theory 3 is that the Pakistani Army organised the invasion under a plan called Operation Gulmarg. It has been discussed in detail by Indian military authors: Bajwa, Jasbir Singh, and various others. It was also mentioned breifly by K. V. Krishna Rao and Arjun Subrahmaniam, But some of the details were vague or inconsistent. A couple of days ago, I decided to check Kalkat's book and, after squeezing enough information from Google snippet view, the details are fairly clear.

Major O. S. Kalkat was serving in the Bannu Brigade at Bannu at the time of partition. He was scheduled to leave for India at the beginning of September. On 20 August, when he was deputising for his commanding officer Brig. C. P. Murry (probably "Murray") who was away, there arrived in the post a letter marked "Personal - Top Secret". In it was a letter from General Frank Messervy attaching the plan for Operation Gulmarg. He was shocked, but quickly realized that the letter had to be personally acknowledged by his brigadier within 24 hours. So, he called him to return to base and gave him the letter. Probably the delay in the acknowledgement was enough for the higher officials to suspect foul play and he was put under house arrest. He escaped, reached Delhi on 18 October, and gave his information to a Gen. Kalwant Singh, Gen. Thapar and the defene minister Sardar Baldev Singh. None of them seems to have believed him. He was recalled on the 24th October after Nehru heard about it after the Operation Gulmarg started.

We don't have the official document that details what the the Army took down from him. Instead, we have the version published in Kalkat's book. I can't say whether this is exactly what he knew on 18th October or he modified it in the light of later events. The format of the version does look like the kind of thing he would have told the officials, point by point. If this is true, then the Theory 2 is entirely fictitious, a decoy meant for our consumption. Accordint to the Operation Gulmarg,

• 20 lashkars were supposed to be recruited, one from each Pashtun tribe. The Deputy Commissioners (or District Collectors) and the Political Agents were responsible for recruiting them. (Mind you, many of them were British.)
• The lashkars were supposed to gather at Bannu, Wanna, Peshwar, Kohat, Thall and Nowshera by the first week of September.
• The Brigade Commanders at these places were to issue them arms, ammunition and clothing and presumaby train/indoctrinate them. (That is why the letter came to Brig. Murry.)
• The lashkars were supposed to reach Abbottabad, the launching point, on 18th October
• 10 lashkars were supposed to go into the Valley via three points.
• Another 10 lashkars were supposed to operate in Poonch, Bhimbar and Rawalakot, with the intenion of capturing Poonch and Rajauri and then advance to Jammu.
• Each lashkar was assigned a major, a captain and ten JCO's. The entire force was supposed to be commanded by "Major General" Akbar Khan (he was a Colonel at that time), with Birg. Sher Khan assisting. There is no mention of Khurshid Anwar.
• There is no mention of the Poonch rebels ("Azad Army") except that they were supposed to act as guides for the lashkars, 10 guides per each lashkar. Akbar Khan was also given the task of organising the "Azad Army", the major portion of which was supposed to come from the Muslim element of the J&K State Forces. (Bullet point of 12 of Kalkat.)

Now, notice the corroboration from RJ Moore. It is known that, by 13 September, the Pathans were on the move. Deputy Commissioner of Dera Ismail Khan was involved. Malakand Agency, Swat (princely state), Dir (princely state) and Chitral (princely state) were involved, which were all under the control of Political Agents. And, Pathans were being shipped to Sialkot.

The question now is, who ordered this operation? Obviously, General Messervy couldn't do it on his own. Neither did Liaquat Ali Khan have the power to order the General. Only Jinnah could have ordered it, and the British government had to be in on it. The implications are mind-boggling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late, I was working for my exams. I have finished reading the message and the references just now. And coming to the point:

• Theory 1 is nonsense — rule out.
• Here comes a doubt, my new theory, Theory 4 - why is it not possible that Theory 2 (12 September meeting) was a large scale extension and effective implementation of Theory 3 (Operation Gulmarg plan) ? All the difference they have in timelines was a few weeks. I mean the meeting could have been held to discuss, plan and execute things more elaborately and extensively. Also if it was a decoy, we've to assume that Akbar Khan was also a part of decoying it. Because, he was visibly involved in 'Operation Gulmarg', and later wrote a book on these issues, but did not mention a word about the Operation Gulmarg. Now Pakistan was also keeping the '12 September plan' and its details, quite secret later, for so long time after the First Kashmir War, saying Pakistan did not encourage/back the tribal invasion in any way. So why did Akbar Khan even mention about the 4000 guns, '12 September plan', and all, if he was with that decoying objectives? He could have simply endorsed Theory 1. According to Theory 4, as to why Akbar Khan did not mention 'Operation Gulmarg' in his book, may be he thought mentioning the 12 September meeting, in which he was directly & importantly involved, as duly sufficient, because of its predominant consequentiality on the later events (acc to him).

The most interesting part is your ending statement. Going by either Theory 3 or Theory 4, the occurrence of Operation Gulmarg plan is validated. So whose doing it was? First of all, are you sure that the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, or some other guy other than Jinnah, could not, or anyway practically did not order it? There would've been many powerful people, other than the Governal General himself, at that point of time, who could de facto insist or persuade the Commander-in-chief, General Messervy, though they might not be having the de jure powers to do so. And if it was Jinnah who planned this strategically foolish act, what about the accounts in Shams Rehman's writings from the blog you once sent me? After few months Professor Ishaq and Ch Hameed ullah met Quaid e Azam in Karachi where according to professor Qureshi Mr Jinnah asked them annoyingly that why we caused all the mess in Kashmir despite his advice not to indulge in violence? Professor Qureshi said we did not do this. It was your Prime Minister and other top officials who staged the invasion. Mr Qureshi told me that when I said this, Quaid e Azam who was sitting on sofa upwards and leaning towards front, almost fell back against the back of sofa, closed his eyes and did not speak a word for few minutes. This is also a part of decoying? Please remember, Theory 3 alone, is literally rewriting the history. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is becoming worse than the worst conspiracy theory ever. But, unfortunately, that is where the evidence is leading us. Liaquat Ali Khan was led to believe that he was orchestrating the whole thing. But somebody else was orchestrating it behind the scenes and making him think that he was doing it. Honestly, I can't believe that I am writing this. It is like a bad Hollywood movie. But I don't know what else to say.

If Akbar Khan was indeed the designated commander, then Liaquat Ali Khan took him off (without knowing he was doing it) and gave the job to Khurshid Anwar, at least for a while. But that "while" was enough to lose the war. That heartburn is what caused Akbar Khan to write the book. He didn't write it to reveal the truth to the world. He wrote it to get at Liaquat Ali Khan and the political class. Remember that Akbar Khan is the only source for the Theory 2. There is no other information available from anywhere else. Shuja Nawaz, Effendi and all other scholars like Srinath Raghavan et al. are just regurgitating Akbar Khan's theory.

Akbar Khan wrote a plan for arming the Poonch rebels. 4,000 guns. Nothing compared to the 20,000 Pashtuns organised by Messervy. The Poonchies were a side show. He needed Liaquat Ali Khan to approve that. But Liaquat went beyond his pay grade. He somehow came up with his own idea of a Pashtun invasion, and started interfering with the Army's carefully laid out plan. That is how the war was lost.

Khurshid Anwar took all the credit for mobilising the Pashtuns. In reality, they were already mobilised by the time he got there. He probably just gave a few speeches and made himself the commander. The Army thought :it was fine to have some bafoons around; it gives us deniability." So, they let him be. But there wasn't much they could do about it anyway without exposing themselves.

Jinnah didn't order it. It is not in his character. He is a constitutionalist. Besides, he liked having princes around, which made him an emperor. Why should he get rid of the princes?

The evidence points only one way. On 22nd October, Messervy was in London. By then Kalkat had escaped, and Messervy knew the Indians would know his plan. He had to explain himself to the masters and figure out damage control. I suppose he did. And it worked. India never exposed him. Neither did Pakistan or any of its whistle blowers. The truth is burried for ever, unless the Russians can hack into MI6. There ends the story. The worst Hollywood movie ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Many small questions left: Acc to you, if Akbar Khan wrote the his book to get back at Liaquat and other politicians for taking him off, why did he not tell that directly in the book? That, 'Operation Gulmarg' was planned carefully by the army on its own (or someone else outside, whose identity is buried forever - say 'X'), political class fiddled with it later and made things messy and caused the loss of war? I think, it was because he didn't want to reveal that it was the Army (may be with that X) who actually conspired first and wanted to blame it on political class, am I right? And who is this Khurshid Anwar? Why was Liaquat so interested to particularly send this MLNG chief to command such high profile military operations, instead of leaving them to army people themselves?

Why was the Brit, Frank Messervy, so enthusiastically favouring and participating in these Pakistan Army's mischievous secret plans? More importantly, why would India not expose Messervy at some point? Who did they cover it for? Besides, it would have greatly strengthened India's case in UN and all, when Pakistan was trying is best to deny its involvement in tribal invasion and endorsing Theory 1!

Lastly, why can't we document about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent in the article(s) from the sources we have? — TylerDurden10 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Also, please check your mail once, cheers! --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See Khurshid Anwar (Major).

Akbar Khan told us what he wanted to tell us. Why would he try to expose the British officers? It wouldn't make sense. Pakistan Army was totally dependent on the British. According to a Pakistan Army man, Disgusted with Liaquats conduct in Kashmir war Akbar later planned a coup against him in 1950.

As for the British strategies on Kashmir, there is a lot of research on it, which you will have to read at leisure (Panigrahi, Sarila, Dasgupta etc. that I have cited to you before.) Unfortunately, Google didn't put them online. The Operation Gulmarg would have been planned over several months. It didn't happen in four days. 20 August is when it became operational. Kalkat's description of his boss's reaction is revealing: The Brigadier arrived at Bannu on 21st August; and soon I presented the vital document to him. He read it and stood aghast. For a long time he stared into the distance with astonishment. It seemed to have upset him a great deal; probably he did not expect that the newly split Indian and Pakistan armies, with the exigencies of the partition had torn apart, should come to such a pass to fight each other. The Mr. X must have been extremely powerful to pull this off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The major questions, when you have time:

• Why would India not expose Messervy at some point, if they did come to know about the Operation Gulmarg? Who did they cover it for? Besides, it would have greatly strengthened India's case in UN and all, when Pakistan was trying is best to deny its involvement in tribal invasion and endorsing Theory 1!
• Why shouldn't we document about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent in the article(s) from the sources we have?

— TylerDurden10 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Nehru never suspected somebody in Britain orchestrating it. He probably believed that the Pakistan government (Jinnah, Liaquat and whoever) were doing it. Both Messervy and Lockhart got fired in short order. (Messervy apparently shared the information with Lockhart, but Lockhart never told the political leaders about it.) That was the extent of Nehru's retaliation. Had Nehru suspected that Britain was behind the attack, he would never have taken Kashmir to the UN.

We can create a page on Operation Gulmarg, but we don't have good sources. K. V. Krishna Rao is the best I could find. Arjun Subramaniam would have been good, but his coverage is totally wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

A seperate page would be too much for the sources we have. But I think we can add content about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent, in First Kashmir War and 1947 Poonch Rebellion pages.

Why because, knowing all this about Operation Gulmarg is a big disappointment to me. It meant that nothing triggered things. Not Poonch rebellion, not 'Hari Singh's tilt towards India', literally nothing! All research on how the India-Pakistan conflict originated is a joke now. It would have started any anyway by Pakistan, and it did. --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I found some more sources. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for demolishing your expectations. But that is how science progresses. New evidence leads to new theories. The new theory is not anything if not earth-shaking. The India-Pakistan conflict was created by the British. The plans were prepared by the British officers, well before independence. There were only six Pakistani officers at the rank of Colonel or above in 1947, most of them in non-combat roles. It was the British officers that were running the show. 20,000 Pashtun tribesmen were brought to six Brigade headquarters, many of them in which the Kashmir forces themselves fought togethter in the Second World War, in order to wage war on those very forces. Lockhart's testimony is mind-numbing for its callousness:

"The Prime Minister sent for me on the morning of 26th January. I walked over to his office and found him looking stern and somewhat agitated. Without any preliminaries, he asked me whether I had been given prior information about the massing of Pathan tribesmen near Attock just before the tribal invasion of Kashmir. I was quite taken aback, not so much at having to answer the question but because I realised that the only person who could have fed this information to the P.M. was Roy Bucher. A few days previously I had told him about the incident of General Sir Douglas Gracey's telephone conversation with me in late October – which I had subsequently forgotten about. I had mentioned the incident to no one else...."

This is the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Army speaking: subsequently forgotten about. He was more concerned about the treachery of his own subordinate officer than with his own total disregard for his office. Do you know that the British burnt all their documents regarding princely states before they handed things over to the Indians? When the war started, India did not even have a map of Kashmir. The navy was intercepting Pakistan Army communications throughout October, but they didn't have any clue where this action was taking place. Where the hell was "Sensa"?

Indian incompetence in handling Kalkat's information is also mind-boggling. "Sardar" Baldev Singh imagined that a Sikh officer who risked his family to urgently reach Delhi to convey the information in time, was hallucinating! Nehru got mad that Kalkat was ignored. But he didn't process the information either. Did it register with him that the orders were issued on 20th August, by the British C-in-C of Pakistan to British officers? That should have been enough for him to raise hell with Britain. Kalkat's information doesn't appear in the White Paper either. Nobody in India paid any attention to Kalkat's information except the Army people themselves, and that too after Kalkat published his memoirs. And, why is Arjun Subramaniam, the only one outside the Army circles that covered the information doing it so incompetently? Even if nobody else does, one would expect India's security establishment to process the information with the due care that it deserves.

So, there is plenty for you to do. Perhaps not on Wikipedia, but in real world where things should actually happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nehru might have overlooked it, that the letter came by 20th August in Kalkat's testimony, and most probably did not think that it was the Britishers themselves who conspired all this, instead of Pakistanis. He would've thought Britishers were just supporting and following Pakistan's plans. Otherwise why would he go to UN, at least? (Even if we assume that he didn't want to take on the Britishers due to his friendly relations with them.) Or my extreme admiration for the architect of India is blinding my intuition to doubt him, may be?

Tell me exactly what to do, outside Wikipedia. I'll try my best, with your help. This should not be left hidden somewhere deep in the archives, it must be brought to light. Scholars like Snedden are writing books with the slogan — it was all initiated because of the all indigenous Poonch rebellion, and people like me get carried away with those foolish theories. Any average researcher/reader in future who wants to find out where it all started, should not burden his mind and waste his time between not so significant & consequential things like Poonch rebellion & 'Hari Singh's tilt' to know the truth. One has to be informed that the intention & plan of the Britishers for Pakistan to invade Kashmir prior to all these events, was the starting point of both the conflict and all the later (non-partition) violence during 1947-48 in J&K. --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Kalkat says Nehru threw paperweights at Baldev Singh and Thapar. Indians should have thrown paperweights at Nehru too, because he was the External Affairs minister and he neglected to follow through with the external affairs implications of Kalkat's information. At the least, it could have been used as leverage with the British government. Attlee communicated to Pakistan the very next day that the raiders could stay in Kashmir until a satisfactory settlement was reached, contrary to India's demand. A copy of the communication was dispatched to Lord Ismay, Mountbatten's Chief of Staff, in essence telling Mountbatten what he needs to do. So, Britain had defined its policy within a day of the Indian airlift. Could it have done so if Nehru confronted them with the information? Presumably Messervy was expecting to face hellfire in London. But nothing happened. Nehru dropped the ball. That is the only way of putting it.

Kalkat should have been systematically debriefed by trained professionals and all the policy implications should have been worked through. Kalkat should have been retained in the defence ministry as an advisor to the Kashmir operations. Instead, he was posted at Ambala in some random post, and he was kept getting called everyday to Delhi with some stupid question or the other. The whole thing smacks of total incompetence.

What can you do outside Wikipedia? Well, you can do a Ph.D. on it and write high-quality journal articles. Then we will be able to cover them in Wikipedia.

By the way, I have a good source now. I will add a section in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I added a section in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page. I have my doubts about the claimed leadership by Akbar Khan. For one, he was a Colonel at that time but Kalkat refers to him as "General". He also says that Akbar Khan was to be assisted by Brigadier Sher Khan, even though Sher Khan was senior to him. It is possible that Kalkat's description is the 1983 version, not what he saw in 1947. Somebody needs to find the record from 1947 for this to go anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree very much about the incompetence. But I don't think Nehru compromised national interests, he just made a big mistake. Things were greatly overlooked as far as I can see. To be precise, the timeline was not carefully examined (as you can see, even till today, no writer has given its due importance to the 20 August, and tried to establish that the date was well before any of the so-called "triggering" events in J&K state) and the identity of the orchestrator(s) was not properly analysed, it would have been simply assumed that the Pakistan, by its own, was the perpetrator. Without suspecting the direct involvement from the British Government (which remains only a suspicion, sadly, as we don't have a proof now also). That's where the ball was dropped, acc to me. But then again, its only my theory.

I saw the section, cheers! And okay, he might have mis-remembered about it then. It is possible that it was other way round. Colonel Akbar Khan assisting Brigadier Sher Khan, and Kalkat mistakenly interchanged the identities (speculation). I'm afraid as to what other record from 1947 can be found! Unfortunately, Kalkat's account is probably the only record available to anyone regarding the Operation Gulmarg. — Tyler Durden (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Frank Messervy

I am trying to see what was known about Kalkat before the publication of his book. Absolutely nothing. Here is a book published in 1982, which has loads of analysis about the British. It even has a chapter called British complicity in invasion of Kashmir. But no mention of Kalkat. About Messervy, we learn:

Pakistan C-in-C, General Messervy returned to Pakistan from London via New Delhi where he had a meeting with Mountbatten,[22] perhaps to give him a fuller briefing on behalf of the British Cabinet or the Service Chiefs on the lines of action recommended by them. This supposiiton is based on the fact that from New Delhi, Messervy went to Rawalpindi and before settling down to his work went to Peshawar to talk to Cunningham. The instructions from London evidently had to be relayed on to all the Englishmen concerned.

Cunningham records:

"Messervy came up from Pindi for a talk; just back from England. He was in Delhi two days ago and was surprised to find Mountbatten directing the military operations in Kashmir. M. B. is daily becoming more and more an anathema to our Muslims, and it certainly seems as if he could see nothing except through Hindu eyes." (November 7, 1947).

If "we" can have "our Muslims", why not Mountbatten have "his Hindus"? Obviously not. Being British, he is not allowed to favour "Hindus". That is so very un-British.

While India’s intervention was militarily successful, it was also highly controversial. General Sir Frank Messervy, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, alleged that India had planned to militarily intervene in the state several weeks before the event (Messervy 1949).

Still think Nehru doesn't deserve those paperweights? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

WHAAAT THE ....? LOL!

Why did Nehru stay silent even when India was being ironically, reversely alleged? Why was Kalkat and his testimony taken so lite, even after 24 October? What was the reason? Do you have any idea/theory? — Tyler Durden (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nehru was a freedom fighter. He didn't know how to run a state.

Patel did, surprisingly. That is how the Kashmir operations succeeded. But Patel got pushed out of Kashmir issues by January. It went downhill from then on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Several weeeks before the event". Perhaps Messery believed that information about his operation got leaked to India several weeks before the event? It would then make sense to assume that India was well-prepared? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehehe, seems reasonable, your assessment. But poor Messervy didn't know, India was too lazy to process the information, or even acknowledge it for that matter! — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Summarize about 'Operation Gulmarg' in the Kashmir conflict article also. You know to choose words carefully, better than I do. — Tyler Durden (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I will think about it. It can only be the briefest possible mention because that article has to be based on neutral, third-party sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think, 2-3 lines with attribution shall be appropriate in that case. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Bibliography

• Bajwa, Kuldip Singh (2003), Jammu and Kashmir War, 1947–1948: Political and Military Perspective, Har-Anand Publications, ISBN 978-81-241-0923-6
• Singh, Sm Jasbir (2013), Roar of the Tiger – Illustrated History of Operations in Kashmir by 4th Battalion The Kumaon Regt in 1965 War, Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, pp. 4–, ISBN 978-93-82652-03-8
• Subramaniam, Arjun (2016), India's Wars: A Military History, 1947-1971, HarperCollins India, ISBN 9351777499
• Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
• Pandit, H. N. (1982), Fragments of history: India's freedom movement and after, Sterling

Golkonda getting raided

Somebody trying to vandalise Golkonda [1]. Unfortunately most of the content is unsourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ram Puniyani

He says he was born in "British India" and raised by a refugee family. Probably he was a refugee himself? About a year or year-and-half old at that time? It would be nice to know the story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: This is what he narrates, only the first one minute! [2] Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Youtube also popped up for me another video on WHY RSS WAS FORMED?, which I watched a little bit. I am sorry that his assertions have no historical validity. There is enough solid work on the history of RSS, by Jaffrelot for example. I would have expected a retired biomedical engineer to do some scholarly reading, which he hasn't done. I would just regard him as an activist and commentator. Not a reliable source for most of our pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha. Apparently he framed his prejudices against RSS merely based on his own life experiences. He says of himself as a voracious reader, yet seems like he has read little about RSS of which he speaks quite a lot in his talks. [3]

And anyhow, what is your take on the line about a documentary in Yogi Adityanath that is sourced to Puniyani? Should it be there or removed? — Tyler Durden (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed the debate closely. But if what we say is factual information rather than Puniyani's interpretation, then it doesn't matter much who wrote what and where they wrote it. It would have been better if Puniyani had published his review in a mainstream source. But the place of publication doesn't negate the facts. Are they denying the facts or they just trying to censor information? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The documentary is real and it criticizing Yogi for his hate speeches is factual. No issue of interpretation anywhere. The IPs' argument is about the notability. They say that anti-Yogi observations made by Puniyani published in The Milli Gazette are not neutral and notable. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

Material you included in the above articles appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-104-armymen-punished-for-human-rights-violations-in-jk-gen-vk-singh-1457257. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Triple Talaq in India

User:Diannaa this person is bias. He is trying to threat non-muslims to write on muslim related articles. Please help me what to do? NehalDaveND (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Making allegations against an editor without evidence constitutes an aspersion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I thought to ignore it, but since you commented and its happening on my talk page, I thought its better to clarify.

The user is talking about this edit by the way, where I clearly mentioned why that external link is removed, and nowhere used words like Muslim or non Muslim, let alone threats.

The article is in an early stage, and requires a lot of improvement. The readers will first expect some scholarly analysis of Triple Talaq in its Wikipedia article where various social and legal perspectives of the subject are presented. Not some external links where mere cases of Triple Talaq are reported. Therefore I removed it once, stating the reason. And the user added it second time without giving any explanation in the edit summary, through edit warring.

To NehalDaveND, go ahead google "triple talaq" and add ten more links like National-Level Player Gives Birth To Girl, Gets Triple Talaq On Phone to an encyclopedia article. I won't object, will leave it to your good sense. Have fun, Tyler Durden (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: please review WP:EL for what kind of links to add and the format to be used for them. The link you added is not appropriate because it is not about Triple talaq, it is only describing an instance of it. It is however an appropriate citation, if you choose to add content to the article summarising it.

Please make no more unfounded allegations against editors. If you make such allegations again, you will get a WP:Boomerang. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: This addition of yours is not appropriate. We cannot WP:UNDUEly have a section describing an incident of Triple Talaq on its encyclopedia article. If you want to document content on Talaq on phone, it should be added from WP:RS that discuss about 'Triple Talaq on phone'. Hope you understand. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I will do as you say. I will find something this. thank you and very very sorry. NehalDaveND (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: Never mind mate, cheers! :-) --- Tyler Durden (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Paid edits

... are probably stuff like this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I wonder if anyone gets paid for writing silly stuff like that. Given the content gets removed by other editors anyway! — Tyler Durden (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=User+talk%3ATyler+Durden&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26section%3Dnew