Talk:2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Emergence of Bangladesh

History has been given a miss by whoever wrote the intro. Pakistan had 2 parts, E & W Pak. Most of the '65 war was on the western front, but India could not neglect military action by Pakistani forces in East Pakistan. India had to therefore keep an eye on its second front, even though the Pakistani forces there were relatively weak. It is on record that "East Pakistan Rifles fought against India: and fought very well." The weak Pakistani Army even took to training women to fight the war should they be called upon to do so. How this would help is uncertain. --Moitraanak (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC) The atrocities of the Military Junta in E Pak saw the emergence of a rebel group, the Mukti Bahini. The 71 Indo-Pak war led to the liberation of E Pak and its rebirth as Bangladesh. India no longer has to contend with inimical forces ex-Bangladesh, a country it more or less surrounds. -- Moitraanak (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Moitraanak (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"India fought a TWO-FRONT war in 1965." Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Source added.--Moitraanak (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Nope, you're wrong, India fought one war and intervene in civil war between east and west Pakistan. Qasee1230«Talk» 19:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User Qasee1230, please clarify when there was a civil war between east and west Pakistan. I didn't hear or read of any such event. --Moitraanak (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is not need for it in this standoff.Qasee1230«Talk» 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Moitraanak: Please read: Rudra Chaudhuri (2018), "Indian "Strategic Restraint" Revisited: The Case of the 1965 India-Pakistan War", India Review, 17 (1): 55–75 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |special issue= ignored (help)

Short excerpt on the China factor from Chaudhuri's paper

"As far as the US was concerned, the main red line for the Chinese was Indian military engagement in East Pakistan, and potentially deeper penetration in the west in and around Lahore. It was for these reasons that Indian envoys in London, Washington and Moscow were all urged by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs to accept a ceasefire proposal as fast as possible. ... What worried India most was Chinese military entry through “Pak held Kashmir,” which would allow the “Red Army to attack Kargil and cut off India’s Division in Ladakh.” The US confirmed that 97,000 Chinese troops were stationed in Tibet and Sinkiang together. By September 16, Chinese forces were found in strength on the border with Sikkim with an infantry Division moving from Lhasa to the Chumbi Valley area near the border with India and Bhutan. It is for these reasons that while India deployed three Divisions in West Bengal, Shastri made clear that India had “no quarrel with East Pakistan.”

In other words, India's worry in 65 was not of Pakistani incursions from the East, but of Chinese reprisals for the slightest insinuation by India of military ambition in East Pakistan. May I suggest that you not waste more time by writing fluff and citing it to fluff. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Its not 1971.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• You cannot rewrite history. Ground facts cannot change, just because of somebody's opinion. Who is Chaudhary? What are his/her/your antecedents? The fact remains that a part of the Indian Armed Forces had to be retained in West Bengal to contain any misadventure in the Eastern Sector by E. Pakistan by itself or in collusion with China or the other way around. And E. Pakistan forces did indeed fight Indian forces. May I suggest you stick to your opinion, leave me to mine and kindly avoid the term 'fluff'. I know it is not 1971, because I fought in the humiliating defeat of Pakistan in 71. I have no axe to grind with anybody. Best regards.
  
• Moitraanak (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOURCETYPES, especially the words, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Wikipedia cares only about what the reliable sources, especially scholarly sources, say, not what you or I voice by way of personal opinion. Rudra Chaudhuri is a widely published scholar in the field. (See his Google Scholar citations here.) Whether or not you fought for your country in 1971 has no bearing on the reliability of your personal pronouncements for inclusion in Wikipedia content, only attribution in the reliable sources does. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

OK I shall rephrase my point, what has any of this got to do with the current conflict?Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Not sure. He seems to think this extra bit is essential in a background section. But it doesn't seem encyclopedic. E.g. "emergence," in any case, already supposes a coming forth, or issuing, from an obscure or concealed state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a different issue, doesn't seem relevant to the Kashmir Conflict, same countries engaging in conflict over various issues is nothing new. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Your concept of relevance notwithstanding, history, if penned, must present all sides of all events. Warm regards --Moitraanak (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  

Pakistan was concerned as the US hierarchy, after the Nehru-Kennedy understanding post the Indian debacle in the Sino-Indian war of 1962, was supplying India with light arms for troops on the eastern front. The USSR offered to send heavy machinery including tanks. China, which had started making noise in the Tibet-Bhutan area and moving eastwards towards Sikkim, was forced to back off by the USSR. Another opinion was that fending off China would be tricky. Though Russia did not want an open spat with China, Moscow decided it would not remain mute and inactive if India had to wage war again with China.

The 2 paras below should not feature here in their entirety, and I shall move it to the correct page (which needs cleaning up) when I finish with documenting Feb 26/27 events. Do pl bear with me, for the nonce.

Of the 460 aircraft that the IAF had in total, approximately 270 combat-worthy IAF aircraft were on the western front against about 170 PAF combat aircraft. Another author indicates that the IAF had a large deployment of squadrons on the eastern front, leaving it with only around 290 aircraft in the west, against his researched Pakistani aircraft strength of 203.
Aggressive but ill-directed IAF Canberra and Hunter strikes on the night of 6 September and in the early hours of 7 September against PAF airfields in Chittagong, Kurmitola and Jessore drew a strong response from 14 Squadron PAF against Kalaikunda, Central Air Command’s pivotal base in Bengal. Shamefully, IAF had such poor intelligence about the location of the only Sabre squadron in East Pakistan that it attacked every base there except Tejgaon, the air base outside Dacca, where 14 Squadron PAF had a detachment of 12 F-86 Sabre Jets. With zero air defence and aircraft parked in the open at Air Force Station Kalaikunda, IAF lost eight aircraft (four Canberras plus four Vampires) to two Sabre strikes on 7 September. However, PAF’s 14 Squadron was bested in an epic aerial battle over Kalaikunda the same morning as a young ace with 14 Squadron of the IAF, Flt Lt A Cooke, flying a Hunter, shot down two Sabres.

What has this to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References
References

These 2 paras can be deleted. I think all that needs to be retained is as follows:
Though the IAF had deployed almost a third of its total strength of 460 combat-worthy aircraft in the Eastern Sector, they were not used to any notable effect. The opposition comprised 12 F-86 Sabre Jets of 14 Sqn PAF at Tezgaon, Dacca. This airbase was not attacked at all during the war; instead, IAF Canberra and Hunter aircraft struck PAF airfields in Chittagong, Kurmitola and Jessore on 6 September by night/ early hours of 7 September causing damages of only nuisance value. With aircraft parked in the open at Air Force Station Kalaikunda and no air defence, IAF lost 8 aircraft (four Canberras plus four Vampires) to two Sabre strikes on 7 September. However, Flt Lt A Cooke of 14 Sqn IAF, flying a Hunter, shot down two Sabres of 14 Squadron, PAF. Mohan, Jagan; Chopra. The India–Pakistan Air War of 1965, n. 10, p. 178. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |subscription= (help)

What has this to do with the current conflict?Slatersteven (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

Regarding the act of violation of airspace of India and Pakistan, I would like to update it. USA has clearly reported that none of the F-16 have been destroyed and this disapproves India's claim of destroying an F-16.I hope you let me update this article REFERENCE Henry Thatch (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Again a report of a report of an anonymous claim. When the US makes an OFFICIAL statement come back to us, until then it does not matter how many ways it is worded it will get rejected.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

i think we had talked on it if you see it, FP report has been totally recognized by all the credible sources all around the world. But no counter claim to it, just Indian sources claimed Pentagon don't know about investigation, which is obvious they don't have to know everything around the world.Only those who went to check physically were suppose to know it totally. I guess we will add it in Article. Best regards[1] n (t) 19:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have asked you not to, if you do it will get reverted, please read wp:consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References