Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Mass POV Cuts[edit]

I have found that even previously agreed upon information has now been cut. Such as the line (sourced from Bina D'Costa's book published by Routledge) in the introduction of the article that the Pakistani state justified Operation Searchlight on the basis of the anti-Bihari violence before March 25.

Worse still, on the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide page there has been a complete removal of the (sourced) 'Violence against Biharis' section. Editors should note that the ICJ had noted that both sides accused the other of genocide. So violence against Biharis also comes under the Genocide page.

Also Sarmila Bose stated that

i)before the 25th of March Bengali attacks on non Bengalis took place. This was corraborated ith the Bina D'Costa source.

ii)Sarmila Bose also states that attacks on the Pakistani military by Bengalis before March 25 was common. She also states that the Pakistani miitary showed great restraint until March 25. Anyone who has read Bose's academic article will know that she got this information from Anthony Mascarenhas (who is often quoted to prove the Pakistani Army's brutality). I should have referenced this piece of info to Mascarenhas but the piece of information was extracted from Bose's work. This info is not her stance alone.

There has been a shocking level of removal going on. Editors should be reminded that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for removing sourced info TalhaZubairButt (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi TalhaZubairButt. The reason I did the big revert because it was impossible to separate out what should or should not be included. I suggest discussing each item - starting with the uncontroversial or less controversial ones. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Okay, then lets start with reincorporating the information which had been previously agreed upon ie Agartala Conspiracy Case and the line in the article's introduction about Pak military justifying Op Searchlight due to pre-25 March violence against Biharis (Bina D'Costa). After that we can discuss other content and I can get on to Sarmila Bose controversy and also alternative sources.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Line in the sand[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The article has been full protected

Dear all, RegentsPark drew a "line in the sand" [1], and recommended that all the edits to that version should be discussed and consensus obtained before reinstating them. Any editor that violates the direction would risk ARBIPA sanctions. We have had enough edit-warring on these pages. During the weekend, I will go through these edits and figure out how to structure the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have an objection to this line. I feel the line was not drawn based on a policy but rather an editor was favored by this line. Ghatus removed whole chunk of information from the page and his edit was favored. Also, i would like to suggest if someone other than me starts a discussion then please format it in a way so that it's easy to take it to formal mediation or RFC or ARBCOM if we cannot decide here. I would also like to note that I have no prior experience with any of these processes so I am not sure If I am the right person to dictate a format. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no policy on where to freeze the article when edit-warring is taking place. It can be anywhere. In this case, it looks like RP looked at the edits that Ghatus reverted and found them to be contentious. It doesn't matter really. What matters is that the people talk, if necessary by force. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

The page is protected. Please hammer out what you want included and I'll add it asap. --regentspark (comment) 18:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sarmila Bose[edit]

Whosoever wants to add anything on Sarmila Bose's book in the article, please post here first. Only then a consensus can be built with all points and counter PoVs.Ghatus (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Aye aye Sir! Didnt know you not only did WP:OWN this article, but the encyclopedia too. Surely, will oblige. But just to ask, did you commandeered Vinegarymass911 too to do the same for his edit-spree elsewhere or is it a free-pass for an editor when he pushes your POV?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Your accusations are not worth responding. BTW, there are three points for any editor to look into.
  • 1) What is the nationality of Miss. Bose- Indian or American or British. B'coz a lot of emphasis is being made in this way: "Look, even an Indian is saying so!"
  • 2)What Bose has stated and what other scholars have stated on her work. As far as I know, her book hardly found any favor among the majority of scholars and historians.
  • 3) What should be the weight age of her views in the article. We must not forget that her book is just one of thousands books written on 71 war historiography, even bordering a wp:fringe. Every history student knows that in historiography of Holocaust, opinions of historians like Harry Elmer Barnes and David Hoggan are treated with contempt for their role in Holocaust denial which is a crime. Same is the case here.

So, everyone's views are invited in this regard.Ghatus (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Only a dedicated POV-pushing BATTLEGROUND warrior could insert that crap into the article. Per WP:BURDEN You are supposed to work on the improvement, and if they fall short of encyclopaedic standards, then dear, they will had to be removed! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A critique that I added in the Bangladesh genocide page a couple of days ago:
"Her critics include scholars of gender violence during conflict (Urvashi Butalia), authors of academic books on 1971 and rape (Nayanika Mookherjee, Yasmin Saikia), authors of two forthcoming books on 1971 (Srinath Raghavan, Salil Tripathi), author of a definitive history of Bangladesh (Willem van Schendel, who questioned her "professional and ethical standards"), and an eyewitness (Akhtaruzzaman Manda). Arnold Zeitlin (head of Pakistan bureau of AP in 1971) queried why she did no surveys of non-voters to establish her "support" thesis. Gita Sahgal (producer of a documentary on 1971 war crimes) has pointed out how razakars were dismissed in the book. Richard Cash (author of decades of pre- and post-1971 public health research in Bangladesh) disputes her death toll methodology and has pointed, in this respect, to the research published in Population Studies on the impact of the war on births and deaths. In an as yet unpublished study, Dina Siddiqi (specialist on gender and Islam in Bangladesh, and researcher for Ain o Salish Kendra, which produced 1971 rape study) has analysed how framing and context setting are critical to the production of historical "truths", and therefore Bose's silences and omissions are significant."[1]
In the light of such devastating opposition, we should be extremely hesitant to use anything sourced to Sarmila Bose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Definitely Bose controversial book don't deserves to be cited in Bangladesh Liberation war and related articles. Her book was highly criticized by many historians, journalists and the writers.[2][3][4] MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC) This editor is a sock-puppet


References

  1. ^ Mohaiemen, Naeem (2011-12-31). "Another Reckoning". Economic & Political Weekly. 46 (53): 79–80. (subscription required (help)). 
  2. ^ "Bose is more Pakistani than Jinnah the Quaid". The Sunday Guardian. Retrieved 9 December 2013. 
  3. ^ "Flying Blind: Waiting for a Real Reckoning on 1971". The Daily Star. 3 October 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2013. 
  4. ^ "This account of the Bangladesh war should not be seen as unbiased". The Guardian. 2011-06-08. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-03-31. 

Sarmila Bose 2[edit]

I am afraid this 'devastating' opposition to Sarmila Bose (which comes, unsurprisingly and understandably, from chiefly Indian and Bangladeshi sources) is also in contrast with praise from neutral Western academics for Bose's work.

‘The “Events of 1971”, as the International Commission of Jurists called its report on the subject, have been an enduring source of agonized contestation in South Asia for forty years. Subject to endless mythmaking and exaggerations in Pakistan, Bangladesh and their diasporas, all too rarely have these events been considered with the non-partisan care they deserve. Sarmila Bose’s stunning Dead Reckoning is the first book-length study that meticulously reconstructs the violence based on actual evidence. By showing how the terror of rape and massacre cut across many more cleavages of East Pakistani society than Pakistani and Bengali nationalists like to admit, her book is at once a correction of the record and a tribute to the virtues of humanistic scholarship. Written with courage and searing honesty, it will set anew the terms of debate about this dark chapter in the region’s history.’ — A. Dirk Moses, Professor at the European University Institute, Florence and Associate Professor, University of Sydney

‘Combining rigorous scholarship and a passionate interest in setting the record straight, Dead Reckoning is the finest study yet of the social, cultural and political meaning of the 1971 East Pakistan/Bangladesh war, one of the major events of the twentieth century. Dr. Bose writes in the service of the truth, we are in her debt.’ — Stephen Cohen, author of The Idea of Pakistan

‘I have felt the need for a dispassionate account of the Bangladesh war ever since witnessing that triumph of faith over fact, the Mujibnagar independence ceremony. No one can take on that challenge better than Sarmila Bose, whose courage, disregard for orthodoxy and meticulous research make her the enfant terrible of Indian historians.’ — Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, columnist and author of Waiting for America: India and the United States in the New Millennium

‘History emerges only slowly from the passion-filled context of contemporary events. Sarmila Bose’s book sets Bangladesh’s struggle for liberation at the start of this long passage.’ — David Washbrook, Trinity College, Cambridge

‘Sarmila Bose’s powerful and poignant retelling of the birth of Bangladesh exposes the wounds of civil war and international conflict in a way that has not been done before. This is history as told by participants at the grass roots and it dispels many myths that have been fed by faulty memories of the so-called elites in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Her book should help the people of both countries accept the facts of that tragic and bloody separation of 1971 and to take responsibility for the war that stained the verdant Bengali countryside red.’ — Shuja Nawaz, Director, South Asia Center, The Atlantic Council in Washington DC and author of Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within

‘Bose has written a book that should provoke both fresh research and fresh thinking about a fateful turning point in the history of the subcontinent.’ — Martin Woollacott, Guardian

‘A significant intervention into the historiography of the Bangladesh War of 1971.’ — Amber Abbas, H-Memory

‘Dead Reckoning is a useful resource for students of the region … the reasoning is open and clear [and the] descriptive analysis makes for grim and startling reading.’ — Politics, Religion & Ideology

  1. REDIRECT [[2]]

And I would doubt the credibility of Nayanika Mokherjee's words (to whom Sarmila Bose responded in a Guardian article here:

  1. REDIRECT [[3]] )

especially when Sarmila Bose, who is after all a reputable academic, uncovers that Mokherjee has falsely quoted Professor Willam Van Sendel against her, when it turns out that the Professor had not even reviewed Bose's book.

Also there is no proof that 'most' scholars are against Bose's views. Thats an unsubstantiated clam. You need to understand that all academic works are criticised and have their fair share of supporters and detractors, including those academic sources which are quoted to prove the Indian/Bengali side of the story.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict (1 April 2016)[edit]

Since, some editors have been reverting well sourced information from this article. This article was fully protected by RegentsPark after I agreed to self-revert my perfectly well sourced edit. The edit in question is this. Opposing editors, please list your policy-based objections that why this edit should not be made. The objections should be something more than mere "no consensus" and typical "POV pushing" accusations that opposing editors have been making across several articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the edit is perfectly fine. The content is well sourced. Only problem is the content attributed to Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury, which is sourced to a storyofbangladesh.com, which is a blog. The reference should be changed to a more reliable source. Nothing against any of the other additions.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The original revert was this one, which alleged "Propaganda pushing. Discuss every point on the Talk and build consensus. Also, doing WP:Fringe and also no RS.. RV to the version 29 February 2016 of Kautilya3". RegentsPark also made some comments above [4]. Talha Zubair started discussing some of them, but then got blocked. Ghatus also made some comments above. These need to be addressed. I am going to close the dead discussions and meta-level discussions so that we can focus on the substantive ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vinegarymass911: Indeed, you are absolutely right that the content is well-sourced. But verifiability is only the baseline criterion for Wikipedia content. It should be WP:NPOV, which means that it should represent all scholarly viewpoints with due WP:WEIGHT as per their prominence in the sources. See my comments in Persistent POV pushing section above. NPOV is a difficult criterion to satisfy because we don't necessarily know all the literature on the topic. However, if we find WP:SECONDARY sources as described on the policy page, we can be reasonably confident that they give an accurate summary of all the scholarly view points. But, if we use WP:PRIMARY sources, i.e., sources that represent an author's original research, then we need to assess whether they represent mainstream views or fringe views. Many editors have said that Sarmila Bose's views are fringe. A good deal of evidence for this has already been presented. But these objections are being brushed aside. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not concerned about any other content than what I restored in my edit link given above. I am only interested in discussing items in that edit. Would you be kind enough to list your objections about that content here what ever they might be. Please detail your objections if you consider something not a neutral POV then mention that and reasons why you think that way. Please go through that edit, link given above. Evaluate the sources to see what the sources say and list your objections because this page went into protection due to that edit. I am willing to find a better source for the content which Vinegarymass911 said is supported by a blog. You mentioned primary source. List the primary source which you are referring to. I am sure we can properly attribute that if cannot replace it by a secondary sources but WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:CENSOR are no options here. You cannot censor what you don't like and just allow what you like. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the content that was agreed upon nearly long ago and before any dispute (i.e the Bina D'Costa reference abt Op Searchight's initiation in the article lead and Agartala Case) needs to be restored ASAP. There is no disagreement over that as far as I m aware.

For Sarmila Bose's info abt the pro-pakistan and pro-independece polarisation amongst bengalis, this can be easily affirmed from common knowledge and other sources. On the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War page I have also added one source from John H Gill which substantiates this point of hers.

Anti-Bihari genocidal violence is already well known even before Bose's time and hence should be included, whether attributed to Bose or not.

So too should the sourced text about the anti-Bihari violence under the Atrocities section.

In the Operation Searchlight section, where the pre- 25 March scenario is mentioned, the source reference can simply be changed from Bose to Bina D'Costa and Anthony Mascarenhas who mention the same facts as her.

TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vinegarymass911: The Dr M Abdul Mumin Chowdhury book is not sourced to a blog alone: https://library.soas.ac.uk/Record/330172 http://www.docfoc.com/behind-the-myth-of-three-million-by-dr-m-abdul-mumin-chowdhuryTalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3's disputed summary of Naim article[edit]

@Kautilya3: I am not interested in whether Naim agrees with Indian Muslim opinion or not, I am more interested in his documentation of the Muslim opinions of that time. (So keep the term 'brutal' away).

I went through the WP:PRIMARY policy and it says:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons §?Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

So it seems as far as the Haqeeqat quote is concerned, it can be included with the straightforward words of Naim (ie The following quotation from Haqeeqat (Lucknow: n.d.) conveys well the feelings at that time). So we should include it in the article like this.

For a majority of Indian Muslims, the pervasive mood in the days immediately after the war was a mixture of despair, confusion, and anger. According to Naim the following quotation from Haqeeqat (Lucknow: n.d.) conveys well the feelings at that time:

The chief reason for the resentment of the Muslims is that the event of the independence of Bangladesh and her severance of all ties with Pakistan was generally celebrated in India as if the 'victory' had been gained against the Muslims themselves. Insulting and provocative slogans were raised against them in public meetings in this country. A second reason is that the Muslims in general do believe that the war was primarily fought for the purpose of destroying the integral unity of Pakistan. Our Ministry of Information hands out all sorts of propaganda but does nothing to dispel the dejection and resentment of Indian Muslims" (Quoted in Sidq-i-Jadid; 21 January 1972).

Your Summary[edit]

And now we come to your summary of the Naim article. Which was a biased summary and you didn't give all the details as you should have.

Lets take a look at your Naim summary diff before I had edited it diff:

Kautilya3's summary of Naim: 'The pervasive mood among Indian Muslims was initially a mixture of anger, despair and confusion. They postulated that the war was fought primarily for the purpose of destroying the integral unity of Pakistan. The alleged prophesies of Shah Ni'matullah Wali were recalled to imply that the perceived calamity to the Muslim psyche was part of a grand scheme ordained by the Almighty God. However, once the impact of the break-up of Pakistan had sunk in, the defeat was attributed to Pakistan the country as opposed to Islam the ideology. One variety of nationalism had lost to another. The emergence of Bangladesh was seen as part of the pattern of world history, even Muslim history, similar to the separation of Sudan from Egypt or that of Singapore from Malaysia. What was unique to the case of Bangladesh was the "vastness of brutality done against innocent people." While the Muslims lamented the injury that had occurred to a united Pakistan, they recognized that there was now one more indpendent state of Muslims and wished for its success' (End of Kautilya3's quote)


Now let me ask you some questions about your summary:


Question 1) Your words in your summary are that - 'However, once the impact of the break-up of Pakistan had sunk in,'

But there is nothing in the article which mentions or implies the phrase 'once the impact of Pakistan's break-up sunk in'. Please indicate paragraph number if you are correct.

What the article actually says is 'The commentators in the Muslim press adopted various tacks to shore up this collapse of morale.'

So what the article actually said (and which you ignored) was that Indian Muslims were looking for answers so they could shore up their collapsed morale in the wake of Pakistan's defeat. And the concern of Indian Muslims was predominantly about defending the original Muslim separatist movement of 1947.

And as a result different answers came up. Shah Nadvi (whose opinion was the only one you included in your summary) was not the only one who gave answers. Daryabadi also gave his own opinion, which you ignored-despite both of them being clerics and thus the same class of people.

So your summary needs improvement.


Question 2) Why did you stop at ' One variety of nationalism had lost to another....'? You skipped this important bit that came right after it (in the original article):

'.....and that the ideology of Islam still remained as meaningful and relevant as before. Pakistan met with this calamity because the Pakistanis failed to make Islam a reality in their social and political life. The implied thrust of such arguments was that there had been nothing wrong with the original separatist and exclusivist interpretation of Islam; that those values still held true and would certainly come to the fore again in both Pakistan and Bangladesh; and that what was lacking were true believers who would put those values into effect.' [full paragraph in the Naim article)


Your summary was incomplete. It stops on the line that 'one nationalism lost to another'. The original article then went on to say that the opinion amongst Indian Muslims was that the original separatist Islamic movement was correct and the Muslim nationalism was also correct but Pakistan was criticised for not implementing Islam, therefore lacking true believers in Muslim nationalism.

Now including that info would have made it an accurate summary.


Question 3) Furthermore why did you not separate the different Indian Muslim opinions. Eg; Maulana Daryabadi who condemned the Bengali uprising against Pakistan (even in 1972 he repeated his condemnation of the Bengali rebels) and then after the war called for all Muslims to repent, was a separate personality to that of Shah Muinuddin Nadvi who was the one who had said that If, on the one hand, its secession caused injury to a united Pakistan, on the other there has now emerged one more independent state of Muslims. Wisdom demands that forgetting the past we should try to come together. Bangladesh should treat the non-Bengalis with kindness. Her leaders cannot forever remain indifferent to Islam and Muslims.

You mixed both opinions up (of separate scholars) into one single opinion. Or you included Nadvi's stance but excluded Daryabadi's stance.


Question 4) Why did you leave out the last bit of Nadvi's statement about Bengalis needing to 'not remain indifferent to Islam and Muslims'? That was really important since the Bengalis had ignored their religious identity and revolted on the basis of ethnic nationalism.


Question 5) And where did you get this bit of your summary from and wished for its success???

There is nothing in the article which said that Indian Muslims 'wished the Bengalis success'. All that Shah Nadvi said was that Bangladesh is a new independent Muslim country. Full stop. Neither his words nor Naim's words said anything about Indian Muslims wishing Bangladesh 'success'. What he did call for however, was a desire for reconciliation.


Question 6) You got this bit of your summary - While the Muslims lamented the injury that had occurred to a united Pakistan, they recognized that there was now one more indpendent state of Muslims- not from Naim's words but from the quote of Shah Muinuddn Nadvi. Yet you asked me stick to Naim's words and not to use the Haqeeqat/Sidq-e-Jadid quote (which had included the Indian Muslims complaint that India celebrated its victory as a victory against Muslims) because its a primary source yet you yourself used Shah Nadvi's quote for your summary-which was also a primary source. Could you explain why?


Question 7) You also got this bit of your summary - They postulated that the war was fought primarily for the purpose of destroying the integral unity of Pakistan. - from the Haqeeqat quote. Its the same quote where Indian Muslims complained that India was celebrating its victory as a victory against Muslims. But you don't want to include that little bit of info. Yet you are willing to use the second part of the Haqeeqat quote (which is Primary source in itself) even though it has no back-up from Naim's words (which is the secondary source).

Please explain why?


Question 8) There is nothing in the article at all which says that Indian Muslim opinion changed (indeed the conclusion claimed Indian Muslim thinking did not change and they continued to adhere to the 'one Muslim nation' ideology).


Now lets take a look at the summary of Indian Muslim opinion as was provided in the Naim article:

(1) Pakistan came into existence through the sacrifices of Indian Muslims, who then had to pay dearly for it. They were abandoned by their erstwhile leaders. Many of them had to leave their relatives and properties and go to live in an alien land, where they were now in grave danger. Those who stayed behind have had to suffer similarly in communal riots.

(2) The Muslims of India, when they raised the cry for Pakistan, had not been duped by the leaders of the Muslim League. Their demand was a deliberate political move. The majority that supported that demand felt that in a separate Muslim state their one religion, one language, and one culture would flourish, and a kind of Islamic renaissance would take place. At that time, there was no demand for separate regional cultures. If such a demand had been raised, Pakistan would have been rejected by all the Muslims.

(3) The creation of Bangladesh does in no way negate the validity of the original movement for Pakistan. Even in India a strong nationalism has not succeeded in keeping intact old state boundaries.

(4) Bangladesh is a Muslim country, like Iran or Jordan.

(5) If the East Bengalis are so keen about a separate Bengali culture they should not have joined the Pakistan Movement in the first place. Further, if their Bengali nationalism is so important for them they should now merge their country with the Indian Bengal.

(6) In 1946, when the erstwhile North Western Frontier Province and the united Punjab had shown little enthusiasm for Pakistan, it was the Bengali Muslims who came out so strongly for a united Pakistan. It is now meaningless, therefore, for the Bengalis to claim that they have won their independence from West Pakistan. It should perhaps be put the other way around.

(7) It is incorrect to say that the old East Pakistan did not make sufficient progress. After all, it was, to begin with, a most backward region.

(8) The leaders of East Bengal displayed a lack of patience and forbearance. They responded too emotionally and thereby caused great loss of life. They should have known that the Pakistani army would be tough in its reprisal.

(9) 'It is wrong to blame the Pakistani army for all the destruction. Were not, in the early stages of the crisis, the various Bahinis being praised for their guerrilla activities?

(10) Finally, if the initial partition of the country was all that bad, as the Bengali leaders now claim, then Bangladesh should now join India. That may persuade even Pakistan to do the same. That would indeed be a glorious day for Indian Muslims.


To me this summarised opinion seems just as, if not more, critical of Bengalis as it is of Pakistan.


@Kautiya3: I suggest you read and re--read Naim's article to properly understand it.

Note: Points 4 and 10 do not support your stance at all. It should be read in context of Points 1,2 and 3.

Point 3 is particularly important in understanding the entire Indian Muslim reaction: which was primarily based upon defending the original Muslim separatism which had formed Pakistan.

So Kautilya3's interpretation of the article's documentation of Muslim reaction goes like this:

1. Muslims were angry and confused

2. Shah Waliyllah's prophecies were recalled.

3. However, later the impact of Pakistan's defeat sunk in

4. Indian Muslims realised that one nationalism had lost to another

5. Indian Muslims, although initially hurt at Pakistan's breakup, later accepted Bangladesh since it was a Muslim country and wished for its success.


My interpretation of the article's documented Muslim reaction is different. It goes like this:

1. Indian Muslims were angry and confused initially at Pakistan's breakup.

2. They resorted to conspiracy theories to explain Pakistan's breakup (eg the Israeli Zionist agents theory). Some pinned ther hopes on alleged prophecies.

3. The press tried to increase the morale of Indian Muslims, which had collapsed due to Pakistan's defeat.

4. They defended the original Islamic separatist movement in 1947. They tried to reassure themselves that the original movement to create Pakistan was correct as was Muslim nationalism. All that was lacking, in their opinion, was Pakistan's implementation of Islam in society and politics. They hoped that this Islamic nationalism would return to both Pakistan and Bangladesh

5. There were different ways Indian Muslims tried to boost their morale.

Some, such as Maulana Daryabadi, (repeatedly) condemned the Bengali uprising against Pakistan and called for all Muslims to repent to God.

Others, such as Shah Nadvi, said that despite Pakistan's breakup, Bangladesh was still a Muslim country and they also called for Bengalis to not remain indifferent to Islam and Muslims. They simultaneously called for reconciliation (between the Muslims).

6. In all, Indian Muslims criticised the shortcomings amongst all groups. They criticised the Bengali leadership for impatience, acknowledged that both the Pakistani Army and Bengali guerillas had caused the devastation, they felt that East Bengal had always been a backward region economically therefore it was untrue that East Pakistan had made no progress since becoming part of Pakistan and they also criticised the Bengalis for having originally joined the Pakistan Movement if ethnic identity was so important for them.

7. They believed that not only was Bangladesh still a Muslim country, but its breaking away from Pakistan did not negate the original Indian Muslim demand for Pakistan.

Again it was an attempt to reassure themselves of Pakistan's creation's validity.

8. They also felt that if Bengalis believed the original partition was wrong, perhaps they should rejoin India. If both Bangladesh and Pakistan reunited with India, that would improve the situation of Indian Muslims who have had to suffer since the Partition.

Now, to resolve this dispute, its up to other editors to read the article and see whose interpretation is more accurate.

  1. REDIRECT [[5]]

TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Response by Kautilya3[edit]

Phew, that is a pretty long essay. Before I begin, a few meta-level points:

  • You have been here long enough that you need to read and follow the talk page guidelines at WP:TALK and WP:TPHELP. In particular, you need to be concise.
  • You can't call it "Kautilya's disputed summary" before you even disputed it.
  • You can't call it "biased summary" just because I left out stuff. Any summary would leave out stuff. To call it "biased," you would need to demonstrate that it distorted what was said in the source.
  • You might care more about the primary sources than Naim's analysis, but Wikipedia cares about the secondary source. The Muslim Press itself is not admissible on Wikipedia even as a primary source. Only mainstream news outlets are admissible, not community news outlets.

My summary is here. It is supposed to be a small paragraph in a section on Reaction in India to the war. It can't be any longer than what I wrote. In fact, it is already overweight in that section.

The only thing I can be criticised for are the words "However, after the impact of the break-up of Pakistan had sunk in," which are not anywhere in the source. But either that or something like it is necessary to separate the two views mentioned there, the first representing despair and the second representing their way of coming to terms with it.

Your expanded summary here

  • added the feeling that Indians celebrated the victory as a victory against Muslims. This cannot be added without endorsement from a scholarly source, and Naim clearly did not endorse it. We have to find out if it is a fact or not, and, if it is a fact, report it as such, not via a second-hand commentary that is unverifiable.
  • added the feeling that atrocities were committed by "all sides." Once again it is a commentary on a purported fact, which needs to be verified independently.
  • added that they lectured Bangladesh to remember its Muslim identity. Sorry, no. This is not a "reaction." They have no business lecturing Bangladeshis.
  • added that they said all Muslims are one nation. I am personally ok with adding it, but it doesn't say very much. This kind of nationhood doesn't have any bearing on world politics.

I don't feel like answering your long list of questions of the variety "why do you leave out X." I will read them again and see if there is anything worth responding to. On your Question 8, "there is nothing in the article at all which says that Indian Muslim opinion changed," there is, but subtly. The phase 4 (after the war) reaction talks about the "reaction immediately after the war" and later "the theme that was repeated incessantly." There is a change between the two. We also know from other sources, for example this one[1], that it changed drastically. "The two nation theory is dead," according to this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Discussion of Kautilya3's summary[edit]

You can't call it "biased summary" just because I left out stuff. Any summary would leave out stuff. To call it "biased," you would need to demonstrate that it distorted what was said in the source.

@Kautilya3: It certainly was a biased summary because it didn't summarise all perspectives. You picked out the perspectives of your POV, ignored the rest which didn't support your POV.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You might care more about the primary sources than Naim's analysis, but Wikipedia cares about the secondary source. The Muslim Press itself is not admissible on Wikipedia even as a primary source. Only mainstream news outlets are admissible, not community news outlets.
@Kautilya3: Refer back to my questions no 6 and 7. You yourself have used the primary sources.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: But you yourself used primary quotes for your 'summary'. Refer back to my questions No. 6 and No. 7.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

My summary is here. It is supposed to be a small paragraph in a section on Reaction in India to the war. It can't be any longer than what I wrote. In fact, it is already overweight in that section.

The only thing I can be criticised for are the words "However, after the impact of the break-up of Pakistan had sunk in," which are not anywhere in the source. But either that or something like it is necessary to separate the two views mentioned there, the first representing despair and the second representing their way of coming to terms with it.

@Kautilya3: You are also being criticised for adding this bit 'and wished for its success'. Because nowhere in the article did it say that indian Muslims wished Bangladesh success. There was however a call for reconciliation.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Talha Zubair, I hope you will stop writing these long posts and attempt to be concise as recommended by WP:TALK. You will not be able to achieve consensus the way you are going.
If you want to object to any content I included, you need to object to it on its own merits/demerits, not on the grounds of what I did not include. The only objection you have raised is that I summarised the primary source in some of the sentences rather than Naim's analysis. You refer to Questions 6 and 7. Let us look at them:
  • (Q6) While the Muslims lamented the injury that had occurred to a united Pakistan, they recognized that there was now one more indpendent state of Muslims. This view point is being clearly endorsed by Naim who says: "A less hysterical analysis was the editorial in Aza'im (Lucknow; 28 December 1971). It laid emphasis on the fact that the emergence of Bangladesh as a separate nation was by no means a unique event in world history..."
  • (Q7) They postulated that the war was fought primarily for the purpose of destroying the integral unity of Pakistan. I included it because it was part of the quote that you included originally. We can delete it.
  • You object to the phrase "and wished for its success." It is fine to replace it with "and wished for reconciliation between the two countries."
Are we done with your objections? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Okay I think you should now produce a new summary and we can take it from there and we'll see If I still have any objections to it. I want you to replace 'once the impact of the breakup had sunk in' with 'the Indian Muslim press tried to boost the Indian Muslim morale in the wake of Pakistan's defeat'. (This is in Naim's words).
Also I want you to mention that the Indian Muslims defended their original separatist interpretation of Islam in spite of Bangladesh's creation. My stance is that Indian Muslims were trying to reconcile with Bangladesh's emergence (with mixed responses) while holding onto their defence of Pakistan's creation in the first place.
That would resolve our argument. ThanksTalhaZubairButt (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will construct a new summary in the evening. (Once again, you are not indenting posts. If you can't learn to indent them despite repeated requests to do so, your competence will be in question.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Having awaited your new summary, I made one myself. It includes the quotes in adherance to the Wiki policy about using primary sources.

For a majority of Indian Muslims, the mood in the days immediately after the war was a mixture of anger, confusion and despair. One section of the Indian Muslim press (eg; Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi) viewed the Bengali rebellion against Pakistan as reprehensible according to their interpretation of Islam.
To boost Indian Muslim morale in the wake of Pakistan's defeat, another section of the Indian Muslim press (eg; Aza'im ) laid emphasis on the fact that the emergence of Bangladesh as a separate nation was not a unique event in Muslim history. The overall attitude of Indian Muslims, despite accepting that Bangladesh was still a Muslim country, was to defend their original creation of Pakistan.

TalhaZubairButt (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is rather minimalist, and excises portions that you find inconvenient. More seriously, the conclusion is different from what we had agreed. This view is labelled as "fundamentalism" and "irrational thinking" by Naim. I don't think you want this. Moreover, it is contradicted by the comprehensive essay in Nida-i-Millat which said that it would be a "glorious day" for Indian Muslims if both both Bangladesh and Pakistan joined India! There is extensive research by people like Ayesha Jalal that the Indian Muslims didn't know what they were supporting when they supported "Pakistan." They certainly didn't expect that Jinnah would desert them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here is my revised summary, without using primary source material:

For a majority of Indian Muslims, the mood in the days immediately after the war was a mixture of anger, confusion and despair. One section of the Indian Muslim press (eg; Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi) viewed the Bengali rebellion against Pakistan as reprehensible according to its interpretation of Islam. To boost the morale of the Indian Muslims in the wake of Pakistan's defeat, all Muslim journals said that defeat was of Pakistan the country not Islam the ideology. Lucknow paper Aza'im pointed out that the emergence of Bangladesh as a separate nation was not a unique event in Muslim history. What was unique to the case of Bangladesh was the "vastness of brutality done against innocent people." The overall reaction was a recognition that Bangladesh was now a new Muslim country, and the Muslim Press called for its reconciliation with Pakistan.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Just two suggestions for a change. This sntence is yours: To boost the morale of the Indian Muslims in the wake of Pakistan's defeat, all Muslim journals said that defeat was of Pakistan the country not Islam the ideology.

I would reword this sentence as: To boost the morale of the Indian Muslims in the wake of Pakistan's defeat, all Muslim journals said that defeat was of Pakistan the country not Islam the ideology and that the original separatist interpretation of Islam was correct.

Your second sentence: The overall reaction was a recognition that Bangladesh was now a new Muslim country, and the Muslim Press called for its reconciliation with Pakistan.

I think a rewording here would be to exclude the reconciliation part since that is from within a primary source. So re-word it as: The overall reaction was a recognition that Bangladesh was now a new Muslim country, and its creation did not negate the validity of Pakistan's creation.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Talha Zubair, I am trying to end the passage with a positive note, not a view that has been criticised by Naim as "fundamentalism" and "irrational thinking." If you want such views, then we have to state his assessment of it as well. Moreover, we know from Tanweer Fazal's analysis that this fundamentalism did not persist. The Indian Muslims came out with a fundamentally changed understanding of their identity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Yes but are we talking abt Indian Muslim identity change or Indian Muslim thinking change in relation to 1971? (which is all what the Naim article is abt) And I personally don't understand how defending the validity of Pakistan's creation was fundamentalist. I am sure you are aware of how some of the most fundamentalist Indian Muslims were those who had supported the Congress during Partition.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
If you don't understand it, then you have work to do. I will be happy to explain it to you some time. But as far as the present debate is concerned, we have to go by the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying that if I want you to include the bit abt Indian Muslim defence of creating Pakistan in the 1st place, then you will add Naim's critiscism of Indian Muslim opinion? I thought I said I was more interested in his documentation of Indian Muslim opinion than whether he agreed with it or not.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of TalhaZubaurButt's additional points[edit]

Your expanded summary here

  • added the feeling that Indians celebrated the victory as a victory against Muslims. This cannot be added without endorsement from a scholarly source, and Naim clearly did not endorse it. We have to find out if it is a fact or not, and, if it is a fact, report it as such, not via a second-hand commentary that is unverifiable. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talkcontribs)
@Kautilya3: Again, refer back to my questions No. 6 and No. 7. You conveniently did use parts of quotes (primary sources) when it suited you.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see you defending the point included. It is mentioning "facts" not introduced in evidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • added the feeling that atrocities were committed by "all sides." Once again it is a commentary on a purported fact, which needs to be verified independently. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talkcontribs)
@Kautilya3: This is mentioned in the article. Point No.9 of the summary.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I am ok to add this sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • added that they lectured Bangladesh to remember its Muslim identity. Sorry, no. This is not a "reaction." They have no business lecturing Bangladeshis. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talkcontribs)
@Kautilya3: This was a part of their reaction, hence being included. We can't just cherrypick the parts of quotes you like.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Bangladesh is a "Muslim nation" has been already mentioned. This doesn't add anything new. So I don't see the point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • added that they said all Muslims are one nation. I am personally ok with adding it, but it doesn't say very much. This kind of nationhood doesn't have any bearing on world politics. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talkcontribs)
@Kautilya3: If you are okay with adding this bit then no further commentary is needed. Unless someone else has anything to add.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya[edit]

Kautilya3, It's good that you are mediating upon this subject among various new editors. But I would advise not to enter into identity politics. If a reaction is needed, give the reaction of Indians without compartmentalizing it into Hindu reaction or Muslim reaction. As the cause of India's taking part in the war was not religious in nature or it was not a "holy war" against any sect or community, such section in the article page would amount to deliberate communalization of history which the Britishers used to do in the Raj era. Avoid this trap. What is the need of Indian Muslim reaction? Ghatus (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus: Indian Muslim reaction is significant because they were the pioneers behind the creation of Pakistan in the first place and the most vocal in articulating support for the Pakistan Movement. I think our Indian friends need to remember that it wasn't the Muslims of Punjab or North Wesr Frontier who were keen for Pakistan (they were reluctant, in fact, to vote for the League), it was the Muslims of India who were keen for it.
Therefore since the breakup of Pakistan raised question marks over the two-nation theory (from a secular viewpoint of course, from the religious viewpoint the two nation theory is an undilutable Quranic principle), the views of the original and most vehement supporters of the theory would be fascinating to take into account.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I won't take a class now on Pakistan Movement though this topic is one of my favorite ones. Just learn two things 1)There is nothing called as "Homogeneous Indian Muslim Community". Hence, connecting Indian Muslims with Pakistan Movement is a fallacy. 2) Even those who took part in the Pak Movement were not "homogeneous" in nature. The Muslims of UP (1937 election) could not get a Pakistan as long as the Punjabi feudal Muslims(1945-46 elections) took up the baton or NWFP became a part of Pakistan despite having a congress government in a highly Muslim majority area. Can you tell me why? I will not go into it as there are thousands of theories and layers in this discussion.
Again, this doubt/discourse/discussion over TNT must be done in the TNT Page, not in B'desh liberation war page. Even if it is done, it must be confined to Pak and B'desh Muslims, no need to drag in Indian Muslims who rejected Pakistan a quarter century ago.Ghatus (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus: Indian Muslims are a part of India, no? So why can't their reaction to the breakup of the country they made be included under Indian aftermath/reaction section? Their reaction is bound to be more interesting than the reactions of other Indians.
And I think you need to study the Pakistan Movement in more detail. NWFP voted in Congress even as late as 1946 and in Punjab the Muslim League had to make a coalition with the Unionists. Muslim League's main support base had always been the UP, Bombay, CP etc. And Bengali/Bihar also. But in Punjab and Sind it took a massive propaganda campaign to convince Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims for Pakistan TalhaZubairButt (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ghatus, you raise difficult questions. But it is not for me to answer them, at least not here. The Indian Muslims have an identity, which cannot be denied. And, I have to say that your picture of India's participation in the war is perhaps rose-tinted. It wasn't a war on Muslims, but definitely a war on a "Muslim state" and "Muslim nationalism." (Aparna Pande)

Talha Zubair says that Pakistan was a nation that the Indian Muslims created. Yes, perhaps. But the Muslim elites that drove the Pakistan movement have mostly migrated to Pakistan. They are not in India. "Indian Muslim" masses did support the Pakistan movement, but the "Pakistan" they supported is not the Pakistan that got created. As a result, the Indian Muslims had been taken for a ride and left high and dry.

Despite all this, paradoxically, the Indian Muslims do seem to have been attached to Pakistan, and the break-up of Pakistan did hurt them.(Balraj Puri) But over time, they got over it, and realized that Pakistan was not worthy of their sympathy. (Rafiq Zakaria) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are correct on this one. What Ghatus has forgotten is that in 1971 the Indian Muslim generation of 1947 (which had voted for and supported Pakistan/Muslim League) was still very much alive. Its the new generation of Indian Muslims who realised that they had no option except to own up to India as their own country and just be proud of it (of course in our Kashmiri case, there was little identification with either India or Pakistan to begin with). Until early 1970s, Indian Muslim migration to Pakistan was heavy, that decreased due to a number of factors: passport introduction, 1965 war, border closures and 1971 breakup of Pakistan. However, strangely Indian society still suspects that Indian Muslims are Muslims first and Indians second.
  1. REDIRECT [[6]]TalhaZubairButt (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Also, looking at your source, I think Pande has made a mistake. When she says 1971 war should have made the Pakistanis rethink the foundation of their country, she has overlooked some basic matters. I have already (on the Kashmir Conflict talk page) explained that the secular Muslim nationalism perished in 1971 and was replaced by Islamic nationalism in Pakistan after 1971. There is a difference between the two. The former is dependent on Muslim populations' sentiments, the latter on [unquestionable] Quranic principles and values. Of course, efforts to revive (remember that for many Indian Muslims in 1946 elections it was: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La ilaha ilallah) and strengthen Islamic nationalism in Pakistan existed before 1971 too, but it wasn't until 1971 that the secularists lost face and had to cede power to the Islamic nationalists. This is why Pande has gotten her analysis wrong.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
[Talha Zubair, still no indentation?]
1994 Bombay is not the best of places to take the pulse of the Hindu feelings, soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the Mumbai riots. The communal situation was highly polarised. Still I was gratified to see some of the feelings lower down in the table.
I don't see any mistake in Aparna Pande's treatment. She is saying that it "should have" made Pakistan rethink, but it did the opposite.
Coming back to the issue on hand, we now have many more sources than the Naim article. So I will redraft a paragraph taking all the sources into account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: The term 'should' is entirely Aparna Pande's opinion. I would take anything from Apanda Pande-who is Director of India Initiative-with a pinch of salt. Her idea that Pakistanis should have recoursed to territorial nationalism is her opinion, and is not going to be very welcome to conservative interpretations of Islam and Islamic Law #REDIRECT[[7]] to which Pakistanis mainly adhere to, as well as Bangladeshi and Afghan Muslims.
  1. REDIRECT [[8]]TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea where that is coming from. Wikipedia doesn't care a thing about the conservative interpreters of Islam or Islamic Law. They are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway, it is you who is going on about Aparna Pande. I didn't mention her at all. We are talking about the reactions of Indian Muslims, in case you have forgotten... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)