Talk:Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Problematic sentence in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Fowler&fowler: "The errant sentence, which was added directly into the lead by IPs or redlinked users". I do not want to get into this dispute but are you referring to me here? Cause I do not see how being "redlinked" makes any editor less credible and there are many experienced "redlinked" users [in my case I simply don't want to create a userpage]. Regarding this case I simply reverted what I felt to be an inaccurate edit. Gotitbro (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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