Talk:Pakistan/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Pakistan know as a secular country

Pakistan is know gonna make secular country by Imran khan.Pakistan is a secular due to containing different religious population. Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan is not a secular nation. Secularism is defined as a separation of the state and religion. Pakistan has a state religion (Islam). Having a state religion does not necessarily negate secularism but the influence of Islamic law, principles, teaching and jurisprudence is not minute. For example all laws must be in accordance with Islam and comply with the Quran and Sunnah. Imran Khan may implement change but including it in the article is just giving him free PR for potentially bogus political promises.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Can someone update the religion figure in the infobox of the article based on the latest 2017 census?! The current figures are from the old 1998 census.

Religion in Pakistan (2017 Census)

  Islam (96.47%)

  Hinduism (2.14%)

  Christianity (1.27%)

  Ahmadiyya (0.09%)

  Other Religions (0.03%)

Regards.Bundestag1 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish, @Lomrjyo:, Fowler&fowler, @Chipmunkdavis: for help as no one has replied. Bundestag1 (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Please update the religious demography of Pakistan

As per 2017 census, Muslims constituted 96.28% of the total population in 1998, but 19 years later the share of Muslims in total population increased to 96.47%.

Since overall population increased by 75.4 million persons, followers of all religions have grown in absolute terms.

The incidence of Hindu population increased from 1.6% to 1.73% or 3.593 million individuals. The population share of scheduled castes also increased from 0.25% to 0.41%, according to unofficial final results.

The share of Christian population, however, decreased from 1.59% of the total population in 1998 to 1.27% in 2017. Similarly, the population of Ahamdis also decreased from 0.22% to just 0.09%.

The population share of other religions also reduced from 0.07% to 0.02%.

Here is the reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:41A2:C000:21FF:9668:47B8:3911 (talk • contribs)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

To edit Pakistan Ojochegbe amos (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes Ojochegbe amos (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Aman.kumar.goel

The reference that is used to support the claim that a massacre on Hindus was conducted in 2005 is incorrect. The BBC article that the reference mentions shows that only one witness, "Nawab Akbar Bugti", gives the claim that a massacre took place. The article itself doesn't state it a fact, therefore, I removed the information along with its reference from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaan4210 (talk • contribs)

Amaan4210 As told before.WP:RS doesn't mention ethnicity. You rejected the content as you mentioned in your edit summary that "source was a Bugti which is unreliable", enough for me to render your intentions unconstructive and don't even argue further. If you are further going to continue to disrupt articles like this with unsubstantiated removals and no genuine reasons, you may end up being sanctioned quite soon. Regards Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel Do not threaten me with being sanctioned, you have not even read my reasons for the edits neither have you read the article. Nowhere did I claim the source is unreliable because of the person's ethnicity. I claimed that the source is unreliable because the assertion that a massacre by security forces took place is based on a quote from a single eyewitness in the article. The article itself does not acknowledge that any massacre actually took place. I have reverted your edits again. Next time, please provide a valid reason for any future edits you make. Amaan4210 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel, as Amaan4210 notes, the BBC is quoting and not stating that as fact. What am I missing? El_C 05:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

EI_C As in the article I see, it includes reporting of a complete episode or story. Whether it is to be taken as news or as accusation wasn't introduced in this particular edit but a bizarre summary which I saw no way reasonable.

PS, Religion section needs more of academic sources rather than plain news articles and clear toning. For instance,

Many Hindus in Pakistan complain about the prospect of religious violence against them and being treated like second-class citizens, and many have emigrated to India or further abroad.

I'm wondering why it'd be needed to push allegory tone in the particular article. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel, I am unable to make sense of your reply, which as far as I'm able to discern, sidesteps my query. Can you respond directly and to the point, please? El_C 08:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that probably what is needed is a source that speaks to that massacre, its nature and scope, more authoritatively. After all, it's been a decade and a half since it happened —and since that BBC piece which covered it (or at least testimonials therein)— surely some additional attribution regarding it exists... El_C 08:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned other pages online but they likely would not be considered official, factual sources to include on a country wikipedia page. Not sure if this article would count: https://unpo.org/article/5398. "On 17 March 2005, in the Dera Bugti district in Balochistan, 70 innocent Balochs, including children, women and elderly were reported killed and more than 200 were reported injured by the Pakistani military." Van00220 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It is true that BBC article cited Bugti, because he is the only major source at this moment and there is no rebuttal against the information provided by him. Just like this scholarly source. It also details this incident and cites Bugti. I don't think there is a reason to remove this information just because the account comes from a yet unrefuted person in a heavily militarized area that has no history of allowing independent inspectors. At this stage, we need to stick to WP:BIASED and allow restoration of the removed information. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Van00220, Aman Kumar Goel, okay, thanks — these additional sources for the casualty numbers do seem to align: BBC's quoted testimony of 62 is close enough to Francesca Marino's as well as UNPO's 70. Why, then, does the contested edit say 32 is beyond me... Please, someone enlighten me! El_C 12:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of quotes from old and new sources:

• BBC, 22 March 2005 [1] – Lead: "'They have killed 62 of my people.'" Later in the text: "Mr Bugti says 32 Hindus were killed by firing from the government side in exchanges that followed an attack on a government convoy last Thursday."
• South Asia Intelligence Review, 28 March 2005 [2] – "A fierce gun-battle between tribal insurgents and the Frontier Corps (FC) near Sangsela in the Dera Bugti district of Balochistan province on March 17, 2005, left more than 50 dead, mostly women and children."
• Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, 27 October 2005 [3] – "On 17 March 2005, in the Dera Bugti district in Balochistan, 70 innocent Balochs, including children, women and elderly were reported killed"
• Amnesty International, 10 February 2006 [4] – "On 17 March 2005, some 62 persons, including 33 Hindu women and children were killed at Dera Bugti when Frontier Corps personnel shelled, bombarded and fired at them." (Reference: HRCP, see below.)
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), August 2006 [5] – Page 27: "As regards the extra-judicial killings of non-combatants in Dera Bugti by the security forces on March 17th 2005, HRCP received evidence that at least 43 non combatants were killed by indiscriminate and excessive use of force of the security forces. The list of victims is given below: [...]" (But the list contains 33 names, so I think the 43 is a typo. One of the victims "succumbed to his injuries on 22nd of March, 2005". I think that explains why the BBC reported 32.) Page 46: "On March 17th 2005, tensions were high when patrols of FC and armed Bugti tribesmen came face to face, leading to harsh words between them. An exchange of fire, with rocket launchers followed. According to credible reports eight paramilitary personnel died while 62 people including 33 Hindus were killed by the attacks made by the security forces."
• International Crisis Group, 14 September 2006 [6] (or [7] via [8]) – Page 8, footnote 57: "Dera Bugti Nazim (mayor) Muhammad Kazim Bugti issued a list of 59 civilian casualties of the 17 March 2005 military action in Dera Bugti. Many were women and children. PPP parliamentarian Sherry Rehman presented the list to the National Assembly. Asim Yasin, “Sherry presents proof of Dera Bugti killings”, Dawn, 22 March 2005." (I didn't find the referenced sources. Unclear whether "casualties" means "injured and dead" here.)
• Asian Centre for Human Rights, August 2007 [9]: "On 17 March 2005, at least 50 civilians, including women and children were reportedly killed by the Frontier Corps in Dera Bugti where military operations were launched against the Bugti tribesmen." (Reference: An article in the Daily Times (Pakistan) that doesn't seem to be available anymore.)
• Sciences Po, 24 June, 2008 [10] – "2005; March 17: During a military intervention with helicopter gunship and heavy weapons in Dera Bugti on March 17, at least 62 unarmed civilians, 33 of them Hindu women and children, were killed by indiscriminate and excessive use of force by the security forces." (Reference: The 2006 HRCP report mentioned above.)
• Dawn, 18 March 2009 [11] – "Jamhoori Watan Party (Aali faction) activists staged a rally [...] tributes to the martyrs who sacrificed their lives to resist the security forces' attack on Dera Bugti on March 17, 2005"
• Karima Baloch on Twitter, 23 October 2014 [12] – "17 March 2005 is a black day in Balochistan history when Pakistani jets bombarded and martyred 71 innocent Hindu Baloch in Dera Bugti."
• Mariam Bugti in the The Express Tribune, 20 January 2016 [13] – "On March 17, 2005, bombs were dropped at my ancestral house in Dera Bugti [...] Sixty-six people, most of them Hindu women and children, perished in the aggressive assault."
• Brahumdagh Bugti quoted by journalist Francesca Marino in her 2020 book [14] – "On 17 March 2005, when our house was bombed, more than 70 people were killed, mostly Hindus, women and children."

My conclusion:

• There was a military conflict in Dera Bugti on 17 March 2005.
• We can be fairly certain that at least 33 civilians were killed.
• I'm not sure about the number 62. Why do some sources mention the number 33, but also 62? Does the latter include Baloch fighters?
• The number 70 given in some sources seems to be exaggerated.
• It's unclear whether planes were involved in the battle.
• No source calls the event a "massacre", so we shouldn't use the word either.

— Chrisahn (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Like. The editor with the most best sources gets the most best respect! El_C 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. So can you restore the removed information per these messages? Thanks Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate. 1. No reliable source calls the killings a "massacre". 2. You added the sentence to the #Hinduism section, but the deaths happened in the context of the Balochistan insurgency. As far as I can tell, they had little (if anything) to do with Hinduism. 3. Maybe we could mention the event in a different section, but I'm not sure. This page is about Pakistan and its whole history. I think the incident should be mentioned in Insurgency in Balochistan, Dera Bugti District and maybe other pages, but it's probably not relevant enough for this page. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In pakistan Wikipedia whole jammu and kashmir separate country

Why you are shown In pakistan wiki jammu and kashmir separate part of India and also daman. 117.209.138.38 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

New Map of Pakistan

A map of Pakistan has been unveiled by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 04 August, 2020. The new Map is freely available on the official website of Survey of Pakistan

There are number things that better elaborates the new Political Map of Pakistan

1. Complete Jammu & Kashmir and Gilgit – Baltistan shown as part of Pakistan with International Border marked accordingly.
2. Complete Jammu & Kashmir (including Indian Occupied Parts) shown in one distinct colour.
3. Gilgit – Baltistan regional boundary with rest of Jammu & Kashmir drawn distinctly.
4. Following annotation written within Indian Occupied part:-Indian illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (Disputed Territory – Final Status to be decided in line with relevant UNSC Resolution).
5. Line of Control (LOC) marked in red dotted line in accordance with own stance with respect to line north of point NJ 9842 up to Karakoram Pass. Annotation indication LOC as under:-“The red dotted line represents approximately the line of control in Jammu & Kashmir  and its accession is yet to be decided through plebiscite under the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.”
6. A word AJK written along LOC with following annotation:- “AJK stands for Azad Jammu & Kashmir as defined  in the AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974.”
7. Working Boundary marked with appropriate annotation.
8. Annotation for FRONTIER UNDEFINED added:-“Actual boundary in the area where remark  FRONTIER UNDEFINED appears, would ultimately be decided by the sovereign authorities concerned after the final settlement of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute.”
9. Border with India on Sir Creek reflected as continuous riband – Key “International boundary along the eastern bank of the Creek “ added.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Munirspatial (talk • contribs) 09:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Publish the most debt country of asia 2402:8100:2354:C3EA:285C:6D48:F687:6A36 (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Can someone please remove the percentages of Sunni and Shia Islam given in the infobox because 2017 census doesn't give estimates for individual Islamic sects. This [15] editor added this information without giving any source. Therefore this edit should be reverted.Goalcy (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: kindly look into this matter. RegardsGoalcy (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Since no sources were given for these numbers, I reverted the edit. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• New Islamabad International Airport,.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Territorial map

Wiki showing wrong map of Pakistan.. Wiki showing gujarat state of india as Pakistan territory. Mohitsavaliya26 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The Pakistani Government for whatever reason has indeed claimed this [16]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Current events in Pakistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Current events in Pakistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Current events in Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate information in map of Pakistan.

There is Small province shown in light green far south from pakistan map as territory of pakistan. This is Junagadh a district of Gujarat state, India. It is not Pakistan. It is misinterpreted in map and false information please correct it. Vijayaswar2804 (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan claimed the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir stretching all the way to the edge of Ladakh; former Princely States of Junagarh and Manavadar and the entire territory and water bodies that fall in the Sir Creek region in the westernmost part of India in its new political map released in 2020. The map has been updated to show all of its "claimed" regions. Peter Ormond 💬 18:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

30 August edit request

Pakistan Standard Time is abbreviated as PKT not as PST, please fix it

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Hi, I'm User:Bookku a discussion about the sourced content is underway @ Talk:Minar-e-Pakistan#En masse public molestation and sexual violence against women.Your inputs are requested and awaited. Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2021 (2)

2402:8100:281B:FBAE:86FC:A48B:5156:2A64 (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan map is wrong Remove POK and baluchistan to make correct Pakistan map

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan a secular state

Pakitan is a secular and liberal state where other religious can live freely among themselves.We are one nation as a secular state. Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2021

Pakistan country in south Asia remain no more Islamic pakistan is a secular change the name Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

JAWAD1P (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Please make me able to edit Protected Pages

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This nation is FATF grey list and have most number of UN designated terrorist organisation.

It will be inappropriate if WP editors not included truth that this nation is in FATF grey list for terrorists financing and taking actions against UNSC designated terrorist living in Pakistan viz Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed. add it in this page's economy section. Haqqani network, a terrorist organisation lives in this nation from 1980. This nation is not safe for tourists and do not travel to it adviced by many nations in the world. towns of this nation is vulnerable to attack and prone to violence. USA government's trvel advisory says that it is not safe to trvel to Pakistan due to terrorism and violence. it is one of the unsafe nation to travel, have to add this info in this article beacuse lots of folks read it. And if editors don't add it, it will be misleading to the readers. Don't need to provide source for, the world's most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden was found living in Pakistan, just few miles form this nation's army training institute. Newton Euro (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

1971 war

The linked article states,

The Bangladesh Liberation War[note 1] (Bengali: মুক্তিযুদ্ধ, pronounced [mukt̪iɟud̪d̪ʱo]), also known as the Bangladesh War of Independence, or simply the Liberation War in Bangladesh, was a revolution and armed conflict sparked by the rise of the Bengali nationalist and self-determination movement in what was then East Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide

An academic consensus prevails that the atrocities committed by the Pakistani military were a genocide...

Our article on 1971 Bangladesh genocide states,

There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War constituted a genocide; however, there are some scholars and authors who deny that the killing was a genocide.

These are not recent additions, either and there are talk-page discussions in favor. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC) P.S: Overall, I am of the opinion that the 1971 war was a ethnic genocide need to go to lead. Improvements are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry the name of the article is Bangladesh Liberation War. The Bangladesh page says in its lead, "Later the rise of a pro-democracy movement thrived on Bengali nationalism and self-determination, leading to the Liberation War and eventually resulted in the emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign and independent nation in 1971." We cannot stick in charged words such as "genocide" or "genocidal" especially in the lead of an article without some sort of consensus elsewhere, in this instance (because of ARBIPA discretionary sanctions) in the wider WP community, at least in the WikiProjects Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Also, bold, revert, discuss does not mean making a perfunctory post on a talk page and then reverting the article to your version. It means discussing it and achieving a consensus for your edit. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a non-response - we already have a consensus in favor, that justified the additions of genocide bit in the lead of the linked articles.

For a comparison, our article on Germany notes: The Nazi seizure of power in 1933 led to the establishment of a dictatorship, World War II, and the Holocaust.

Indeed, we are editing in a zone governed by AC/DS. So, your comment that I know nothing about Pakistan is unwarranted and a violation of NPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• The best source is prob. the entry on "20th Century Genocides" at Oxford Bibliographies Online by Simon Payaslian, a Chair Professor of History at Boston University. He writes,

  A consensus has formed among scholars that genocides in the 20th century encompassed (although were not limited to) the following cases: Herero in 1904–1907, the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915–1923, the Holodomor in the former Soviet Ukraine in 1932–1933, the Jewish Holocaust in 1938–1945, Bangladesh in 1971, Cambodia in 1975–1979, East Timor in 1975–1999, Bosnia in 1991–1995, and Rwanda in 1994.

  As evident, genocides are not a routine event in any part of the world and they deserve to be mentioned in lead of concerned articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  For some OSE statistics, our articles on Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Ottoman Empire mention the genocide in lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Other tertiary sources include "Bangladesh, Genocide In" in Encyclopedia of Genocide. ed: Israel W. Charny. ABC CLIO. p: 115-116 and "Those who have the sin . . . go to this side" in The Routledge History of Genocide. ed: Cathie Carmichael , Richard C. Maguire. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Of course not. 20th century genocides is not the best source. The issue here is due weight. Per WP:TERTIARY tertiary sources such major encyclopedias and undergraduate textbooks are useful in determining due weight. Britannica in its long article on Bangladesh (Tinker, Hugh Russell and Husain, Syed Sajjad. "Bangladesh". Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Mar. 2021, Accessed 11 October 2021) never uses the word "genocide" once, does not even allude to it obliquely. It says, "Among the most notable of the resistance leaders was Maj. Zia ur-Rahman, who held out for some days in Chittagong before the town’s recapture by the Pakistani army. He then retreated to the border and began to organize bands of guerrillas. A different resistance was started by student militants, among whom Abdul Kader Siddiqi, with his followers, known as Kader Bahini, acquired a reputation for ferocity. Some 10 million Bengalis, mainly Hindus, fled over East Pakistan’s frontier into India while the Indian government watched with alarm. The Awami League, which India supported, was a moderate middle-class body like the Congress Party; many guerrillas, however, were leftist and a cause of concern. With some of the major world powers taking sides—the United States and China for a united Pakistan, and the Soviet Union and India for an independent Bangladesh—the Indian army invaded both the western and eastern wings of Pakistan on December 3, 1971. The Pakistani defenses surrendered on December 16, ensuring Bangladesh’s independence. A few days later, Yahya Khan was deposed in Pakistan and replaced by Bhutto; Mujib was released from jail and returned to Dhaka to a hero’s welcome." Will cite soon from two major undergraduate texts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ofcourse not is not an explanation based in policy. OBO is a tertiary source. I have added two tertiary sources (an encyclopedia and a handbook). TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Please don't waste community time. ABC CLIO is not a respected publisher. They allowed one of their authors to copy my Indian famines articles verbatim. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• And as for your vaunted "OBO" please cite the book in cite book format here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• RSN is that-way. Applying a similar logic, multiple errors have been located in Britannica - shall we reject it? WP:RSP notes, Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available.
• OBO - the last O stands for online. "20th Century Genocides". In obo in International Relations, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0105.xml (accessed 11 Oct. 2021). is the Chicago citation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

See Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia, Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, p. 196, The causes of the drift to civil war, the extent to which the Pakistani Army activities after 25 March 1971 can be called genocide, and the circumstances of the Indian military intervention on 3 December 1971 are the subject of massive historical controversy.

You had never edited the article before. In you come galloping into the lead (see WP:Lead fixation) and stick in a controversial word per the most widely used modern history text on Pakistan. Did you add anything to the main body giving due weight to the different views. You did not. You are wasting community time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you keen on only citing tertiary sources? Shall I cite some secondary sources, now? Maybe, a different publication of Talbot? You need to provide references backing up the not-do-obvious claim about the cited work being the most widely used modern history text on Pakistan. GScholar shows 26 citations; in realty, it is around 5.

The Genocide Studies Program of Yale University notes the Bangaldesh Gencocide to be understudied. (My emphasis that this is different from contested or controversial, which they assign to other cases.) If I am not wrong, the Oxford Handbook follows a similar stance and probes into the reasons about this understudy.

The DeGruyter Introductory Reader on Genocide and Mass Violence in Asia finds 1971 to be a genocide. So, is it a non-tertiary source or is DeGruyter not a RS? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just examined the major undergraduate texts on South Asian history:

• Bose, S.; Jalal, A. (2011), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (3rd ed.), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-77942-5
• Brown, J. M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9
• Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0
• Ludden, D. (2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9
• Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1, Since the late 1960s Pakistan had been struggling to contain the divergent interests of its two wings, in the east and west, separated by 1,000 miles of Indian territory. By 1971 Bengali anger at Punjabi dominance of the state had erupted into open rebellion. As Pakistan's ruler, General Yahya Khan, endeavoured to put down this resistance by force of arms, India moved to support the Bengalis, first by covert aid to the rebels, and then, in December, by outright invasion. The outcome was a stunning collapse of Pakistani authority in the east, and the surrender of its army, which delivered into India's hands 100,000 prisoners of war. With the emergence of the new nation of Bangladesh, Pakistan, now confined to the west, was reduced to half its former size, and India's pre-eminence on the subcontinent decisively confirmed.
• Stein, B. (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6

Not a peep is there anywhere about "genocide" in Bangladesh. A brutal military crackdown is not a genocide. You do not understand what due weight is. You are welcome to start a discussion on a wider Wikipedia forum if you'd like. You'll waste more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This is strange but why are you consulting texts on India about this?

Do you plan to write the history of Pakistan using Kulke? Metcalf? Burton Stein? Maybe, you can tell me what commentary they have on Zia (or on any damn figure of Pakistan)? Or shall I go a bit back in time? Habbaris? Hindu Shahis?

It has been always a bone of discontent among scholars of S. Asia that all South Asian Studies Dept. are actually India Studies dept. You have taken that a bit too literally :)TrangaBellam (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyways, it is obvious that we are not convincing one another. Let us agree to disagree and wait for others. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:TERTIARY which states, "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."

Please also note that three of the textbooks listed above are histories of South Asia, which includes both Pakistan and Bangladesh. Here is another South Asian History textbook which speaks pointedly to the matter of genocide:

• Mann, Micheal (2015), South Asia's Modern History, Thematic Perspectives, Routledge, p. 124, 161–162, (p. 124) In the most recent literature in the field of partition, comparisons of displacement and death tolls have even been drawn with "holocaust" and "genocide".152 However, a terminological comparison with Hitler's extermination of European Jews between 1933 and 1945 cannot be claimed, as "holocaust" (rather: shoah) may only refer to the unique, systematic, bureaucratically and industrially organised extermination of Europe's Jews by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Likewise, the killings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs cannot be seen as genocidal in that, first, it lacked the appropriate organisation and logistics and, second, in contrast to the situation of the Jews of Europe, none of the religious communities' and ethnic societies' physical existence had ever been threatened. Aside from such inappropriate names for the interpretation of partition it is obvious that the causes and background to the tragic events surrounding the partition of the subcontinent will continue to fuel historiographical debate for many years to come. (p 160–161) The brutal repression by the Pakistan Army that was flown in from the Panjab to quell the uprising in and around Dhaka, and especially on the campus of Dhaka University, resulted in an unexpected solidarity among the people of the East Wing. On 25 March 1971, Mujibur Rahman finally called for a War of Liberation, which, following nine months of an orgy of violence against the civilian population, led to the independence of the country named Bangladesh; the land of the Bengalis. A significant event influencing the outcome of the war was the intervention of the Indian Army in favour of the "rebels" which General Khan, in disregard of the international situation, had obviously not expected.89 On account of the huge casualties caused by the war in Bangladesh, the account of this war has become the central part of the national historical narrative, whilst in Pakistan the cruelties and consequences of the war have become almost completely forgotten as they have been reduced to the history of an Indo-Pakistani war that failed to address the loss of land it resulted in And he is talking about the partition in which many, many more people were killed than in the Bangladesh liberation war and the brutal military crackdown that preceded it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Finally, a history of Bangladesh. The word "genocide" occurs in seven places. Of these fives are in the extensive bibliography in the names of the listed publications. (Obviously, those don't count as we already know the use of "genocide" is controversial (from Talbot above) which means there are opinions pro and con.) One is in the first proclamation by the new Bangladesh government in 1971 (the text of a proclamation is a primary source). That leaves one page. Here is what the author says there: van Schendel, Willem (2020), A History of Bangladesh, Cambridge University Press, In reality, however, Pakistan's rulers immediately lost the plot. They got bogged down in a guerrilla war that drew international attention and were utterly unable to convince the world that this was merely a domestic matter. As millions of refugees poured across the border into India, carrying stories of atrocities, the international press began to speak of genocide, Bangladesh support groups mushroomed in many places across the world and Bengali staff of Pakistan embassies fled, or were kicked out. International exposure reached its peak with the 'Concert for Bangladesh', a mass benefit performance for the children of Bangladesh, which was held in New York in August 1971 and featured celebrities such as George Harrison, Bob Dylan and Ravi Shankar. By then, world opinion strongly condemned Pakistan's ruling elite. That is hardly an endorsement of the fact of genocide by the author, only a report of international media using the word. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Unless and until I cannot read, only one of the textbooks concerns S. Asia. The volume by Bose and Jalal. All of the rest centers on India even if discussing S. Asia, trivially.

  If you have read Schendel carefully, you would see that he uses the word counter-genocide once. A few pages later, than the one you cited. In his own voice. What does that say about Schendel's views of Pakistan's activities in 1971? Shall I provide a link to him speaking at the book-launch interview on this particular aspect?

  Why I am pointed to completely irrelevant sources about Partition? Genocide is not some competition of casualties, that there exists a bare minimum toll. If you want to discuss that (scholars like Talbot have covered it), some other talk page is more suitable. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Again WP:TERTIARY as it applies to textbooks is used to determine due weight, not Oxford Online links, not what an author says somewhere else, not what a hundred secondary sources say. Here are some more textbooks:<Refactored and moved below> You seem unable to understand that the textbooks written by major historians of South Asia: Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Burton Stein, Judith M. Brown, Ian Talbot, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Sugata Bose, Ayesha Jalal, Gurharpal Singh, ... do talk about a brutal military crackdown against the nationalists, but do not use the word "genocide." Anyway, I'll keep adding the sources to get a sense of the lay of the land for my own satisfaction. I'm not really conversing with you hereafter, so please do not feel obliged to make recondite connections. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

F&f's undergraduate textbooks on South Asian history describing the Bangladesh civil war

WP:TERTIARY states, "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Here is a list of the most widely-read books on the history of South Asia. Please do not add your own here, though you are welcome to add them in the discussion section.

Descriptions of the Bangladesh Civil War in some textbooks

Bates, Crispin (2007), Subalterns and Raj: South Asia Since 1600, Routledge, p. 191, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the prime-minister-in-waiting of Pakistan and the leader of a popular insurrection, struggled valiantly to press his preferred federal solution, but to no avail as he and other elected politicians were overwhelmed by the popular demand for independence and, above all, the initiative of student organisations (Samaddara 2002; Ludden 2003). The Pakistani army perhaps hoped for direct backing from China or the United States to restore control, but this did not transpire. On 25 March 1971 the Pakistani army expelled all foreign journalists and launched a terror campaign calculated to intimidate the east Pakistanis into submission. On 26 March (the day later officially chosen as independence day) Sheikh Mujibur, anticipating arrest, allegedly sent a message to East Pakistan Radio, declaring independence and urging citizens to take up arms for their freedom. The day after, Major Ziaur Rahman of the East Bengal Regiment broadcast a message on Sheikh Mujibur's behalf, appealing for international recognition and support. There followed nine months of bloody repression and civil war, until the intervention of a liberation army of cast Pakistani rebels, known as the mukti bahini, equipped and aided by the Indian military. After a brief but violent 12-day war, Dhaka fell on 16 December 1971, the Pakistani army surrendered, and east Pakistan was reborn as the independent state of 'Bangladesh' (meaning 'Bengal nation'), with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as its first president (Sisson and Rose 1990; Khan 1999). Bose, S.; Jalal, A. (2011), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (3rd ed.), Routledge, p. 219, ISBN 978-0-415-77942-5, In the 1970 elections the Awami League derived tremendous political mileage from the growing economic disparity between the two wings and the inadequate representation of Bengalis in the two main non-elected institutions of state. Denied their rightful share of power, Bengalis fared badly when it came to developmental allocations and other forms of state patronage. A more equitable apportioning of power and resources required the acquiescence of the military and the civil bureaucracy as well as their allies in West Pakistan. But with the Awami League's strong electoral support confined wholly to the eastern wing, espousing the amorphous interests of West Pakistan was one way the ruling configuration at the centre could stonewall a negotiated settlement that might have prevented the tragic dismemberment of the country. By ordering a brutal military crackdown in March 1971, the central leadership in Pakistan exposed their colonial colours amidst hollow-sounding appeals to Islam and national integrity. A common religious bond, abused and distorted to serve the interests of authoritarian rulers, snapped all too easily as the Mukti Bahini (Liberation Army) fought a war of resistance and the army of the Indian state crossed the lines of 1947 to liberate one Muslim-majority region from its tormentors in another. Brown, J. M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, p. 382, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9, (p 382) Three main patterns have dominated India's foreign affairs. One has been the strained relation between India and Pakistan which have erupted into armed conflict on three occasions. The question at issue stemmed from the circumstances of partition and the division of natural resources between the two states; the most persistant flashpoint being Kashmir, the Muslim state with a Hindu ruler which had acceded to India in a manner Pakistan refused to accept. In late 1972 (sic) the issue was the 'liberation' of the eastern wing of Pakistan from dominance by the western wing, and its birth in bloodshed and bitterness as the independent state of Bangladesh with moral and material support from India. Gilbert, Marc Jason (2017), South Asia in World History, The New Oxford World History, Oxford University Press, p. 148, In 1971, during early discussions leading to President Nixon's ground-breaking 1972 visit to China in which Pakistan played a supporting role, West Pakistan's civilian and military elites sought to use force to maintain their dominance over their country's distant, more populous, and asset-rich eastern province after the results of a nationwide election suggested national power might pass to East Pakistanis. Such a transfer of power was intolerable to many West Pakistanis, as they regarded East Pakistani lifestyles as far too influenced by Bengali culture and language, as opposed to the Middle Eastern culture West Pakistanis favor. When the degree of force used by the Pakistani military to assert its control over its eastern province reached horrific levels, India intervened, which eventually enabled East Pakistanis to break with their former compatriots and create their own nation, Bangladesh. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2002), A History of Pakistan and its Origins, Anthem Press, pp. 57–58, 103–104, (pp 57–58) The Indian invasion involved seven divisions which attacked the Pakistani forces from west, north and east. Coordination with the Mukti Bahini was excellent. Indian aircraft made quick work of assuring air mastery, and rendered the airports unusable. The fleet blocked the ports. The Pakistan army, unable to get any help from outside, was rapidly demoralized. Only twelve days after the start of operations, on 15 December, General AAK Niazi, commanding the 93,000 Pakistani soldiers stationed in East Bengal, surrendered unconditionally to the Indian General JS Arora. According to the commanders of the units of the Mukti Bahini, the Indian army arrived just when they had almost finished the job. In fact, despite the courage shown by the Bengalis — the majority of whom were under twenty-five — and the efficacy of the guerrilla actions, we must recognize that it was the Indian forces' participation which brought things to a head, and secured a rapid victory for the liberation movement. The number of Bengali victims during the nine months — April to December 1971 — which led to independence has been variously estimated at between one and three million. Whatever the truth, it is certainly justifiable to talk in terms of genocide."... (pp 103–104) General Yahya Khan, had to deal with growing resentment in eastern Pakistan, which was uncomfortable with a two-headed state dominated by Punjabis and Pashtuns, and very critical of the way the 1965 war had been conducted. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Awami League won an outright majority at the 1970 elections; this should have put the Bengalis in power. But the western military—political elite which governed the country could not accept the League's manifesto, which envisaged maximum autonomy and its own defence capacity for East Pakistan. An uprising in East Pakistan and its bloody suppression by the Pakistan army gave India a unique opportunity for military intervention without antagonizing international opinion. Neither the arrival of the US aircraft carrier Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal — which sent shock waves through India — nor China's condemnation of India's action could save Pakistan from defeat. Contrary to Islamabad's expectations, the Indo—Pakistani war of 1971 did not lead to direct military intervention by the great powers, which readily accepted a fait accompli: the secession of Bangladesh. Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, p. 358, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0, In July 1971 President Nixon revealed that Henry Kissinger had secretly flown from Islamabad to Peking in order to prepare the ground for a presidential visit. A Washington–Islamabad–Peking axis seemed to emerge very clearly. Kissinger told the Indian ambassador in Washington that China would surely attack in the event of Indian intervention in east Pakistan, and that there would be no American help for India in this case. On the other hand, the rising influx of refugees from east Pakistan into India and the massive transfer of troops from west to east Pakistan alarmed Indira Gandhi, who was probably convinced by that time that an armed intervention would be necessary Ludden, D. (2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, p. 232, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9, In 1970, when Pakistan held elections, the Awami League won an absolute majority by sweeping Bengali constituencies that contained 55 percent of Pakistan's total electorate. Euphoria in Dhaka gave way to horror when Sheikh Mujib was arrested and Pakistani troops arrived to subdue the rebel province. The Awami League declared independence. Poorly armed freedom fighters fought well-equipped Pakistan army battalions from March to December 1971, chanting Joy Bangla, 'Victory for Bengali'. Villagers fought soldiers to a stalemate, as Pakistan received support support from the United States. In December, the Indian army flew in to expel Pakistan. Bangladesh became independent, and national state unification began again. Five years later, Bangladesh military officers assassinated Sheikh Mujib. The army ruled the country until 1990, when a popular democracy movement forced the return of an elected government and national development began yet again. Mann, Michael (2015), South Asia's Modern History, Thematic Perspectives, Routledge, p. 124, 161–162, (p. 124) In the most recent literature in the field of partition, comparisons of displacement and death tolls have even been drawn with "holocaust" and "genocide".152 However, a terminological comparison with Hitler's extermination of European Jews between 1933 and 1945 cannot be claimed, as "holocaust" (rather: shoah) may only refer to the unique, systematic, bureaucratically and industrially organised extermination of Europe's Jews by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Likewise, the killings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs cannot be seen as genocidal in that, first, it lacked the appropriate organisation and logistics and, second, in contrast to the situation of the Jews of Europe, none of the religious communities' and ethnic societies' physical existence had ever been threatened. Aside from such inappropriate names for the interpretation of partition it is obvious that the causes and background to the tragic events surrounding the partition of the subcontinent will continue to fuel historiographical debate for many years to come. (p 160–161) The brutal repression by the Pakistan Army that was flown in from the Panjab to quell the uprising in and around Dhaka, and especially on the campus of Dhaka University, resulted in an unexpected solidarity among the people of the East Wing. On 25 March 1971, Mujibur Rahman finally called for a War of Liberation, which, following nine months of an orgy of violence against the civilian population, led to the independence of the country named Bangladesh; the land of the Bengalis. A significant event influencing the outcome of the war was the intervention of the Indian Army in favour of the "rebels" which General Khan, in disregard of the international situation, had obviously not expected.89 On account of the huge casualties caused by the war in Bangladesh, the account of this war has become the central part of the national historical narrative, whilst in Pakistan the cruelties and consequences of the war have become almost completely forgotten as they have been reduced to the history of an Indo-Pakistani war that failed to address the loss of land it resulted in And he is talking about the partition in which many, many more people were killed than in the Bangladesh liberation war and the brutal military crackdown that preceded it. Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1, Since the late 1960s Pakistan had been struggling to contain the divergent interests of its two wings, in the east and west, separated by 1,000 miles of Indian territory. By 1971 Bengali anger at Punjabi dominance of the state had erupted into open rebellion. As Pakistan's ruler, General Yahya Khan, endeavoured to put down this resistance by force of arms, India moved to support the Bengalis, first by covert aid to the rebels, and then, in December, by outright invasion. The outcome was a stunning collapse of Pakistani authority in the east, and the surrender of its army, which delivered into India's hands 100,000 prisoners of war. With the emergence of the new nation of Bangladesh, Pakistan, now confined to the west, was reduced to half its former size, and India's pre-eminence on the subcontinent decisively confirmed. van Schendel, Willem (2020), A History of Bangladesh, Cambridge University Press, In reality, however, Pakistan's rulers immediately lost the plot. They got bogged down in a guerrilla war that drew international attention and were utterly unable to convince the world that this was merely a domestic matter. As millions of refugees poured across the border into India, carrying stories of atrocities, the international press began to speak of genocide, Bangladesh support groups mushroomed in many places across the world and Bengali staff of Pakistan embassies fled, or were kicked out. International exposure reached its peak with the 'Concert for Bangladesh', a mass benefit performance for the children of Bangladesh, which was held in New York in August 1971 and featured celebrities such as George Harrison, Bob Dylan and Ravi Shankar. By then, world opinion strongly condemned Pakistan's ruling elite. Later the word 'counter-genocide' is used once, A third and much larger group were the non-Bengali Muslims who had migrated to the delta after 1947 and who had then been welcomed as Muhajirs. They identified strongly with the idea of Pakistan, and it was not surprising that most — but not all — sided with the Pakistan authorities in their conflict with the Bengali nationalists. Bengalis called them 'Biharis', even though not all of them were from Bihar. In the period leading up to the Liberation War, nationalist mobs had killed Biharis, during the war many Biharis had helped the armed forces and, now that the war was over, Biharis were collectively branded as Pakistani collaborators. Severe retribution followed, leading to a counter-genocide of thousands of non-Bengalis and forcing more than a million to leave their homes and seek refuge in hundreds of overcrowded slum-like settlements all over the country.' Some sought and received Bangladeshi citizenship after the war, but most described themselves as stranded Pakistanis and demanded to be 'repatriated' to Pakistan. Although a number of them managed to reach Pakistan, the 'Bihari issue' was never resolved. Stein, B. (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, Another India by David Arnold: The conflict that erupted almost immediately between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, followed by further wars between the two countries in 1965 and 1971, dispelled any lingering illusions and showed that, however arbitrary the boundary lines drawn up at the time of Partition may have been, their consequences could not easily be negated. When in December 1971 Indian forces helped crush the Pakistani army and liberate Bangladesh the outcome strengthened and confirmed India's military and political pre-eminence in South Asia, but there was little expectation in India or internationally that this would lead to a reversal of the brutal 'vivisection' of August 1947 and the restoration of East Bengal to an India craving reunification. Long before that, the traumatic violence and mass displacement caused by Partition, the imperatives of national state-building and internal control, the very different domestic policies, constitutional processes and international orientation of India and Pakistan, and the sustained hostility between the two countries, all made clear that the post-colonial settlement of 1947 was bound to endure and become a permanent feature of the geopolitics of South Asia. Talbot, Ian (2016), A History of Modern South Asia, Politics, States, Diasporas, Yale University Press, p. 196, (pp 223–224) Both Yahya and Bhutto made a final visit to Dhaka, but this bid to maintain Pakistan's integrity has been likened to "giving oxygen to a dying patient when the doctors have declared him a lost cause."31 By teatime on 23 March the army command had recommended that military action was essential. Even as the 1940 Lahore Resolution was commemorated, student militias paraded with the Bangladesh flag. This may explain the ferocity of the army assault on the Dhaka campus two days later, following the launch of Operation Searchlight. The army also turned its weapons on the headquarters of the police and the East Pakistan Rifles. These massacres led to the "mutiny" of the East Bengali regiment under Major Ziaur Rahman, who just four years later was to head Bangladesh's military government. The unfolding massacres and humanitarian crisis internationalized the "civil war" as millions of Bengalis fled to India. In a forerunner of the later Live Aid concerts, a fund-raising Concert for Bangladesh was held in New York by George Harrison and Ravi Shankar, supported by Bob Dylan. In the White House, Richard Nixon sympathized with the Pakistani government, which had been helpful in forwarding US diplomatic overtures to China. Congressional opinion, however, was hostile to Nixon's "tilt" to Pakistan. (pp 224–225) The emerging crisis provided Indira Gandhi with the opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size and to close the transborder camps for Naga and Mizo rebels. After some initial hesitation, New Delhi provided military and diplomatic support to the Bengali rebels. Thousands of Mukhti Bahini freedom fighters were trained in camps in West Bengal, Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam. India also provided sanctuary for a Bangladeshi government in exile. This did not, however, include Mujib, who had been arrested and flown to West Pakistan. By October 1971 it was clear that Pakistan could not regain control of the whole of East Bengal. The freedom fighters were able to wage successful guerrilla campaigns but could not defeat the better-equipped government forces in a pitched battle. (pp 225–226) The third Indo-Pakistani War lasted just two weeks. During its course, Pakistan lost half its navy, a third of its army, and a quarter of its air force. Yahya, under intense diplomatic pressure from Washington, agreed to accept the Indian terms for an unconditional surrender. General Niazi surrendered on 16 December, along with ninety-three thousand troops who had been surrounded in Dhaka. While Mujib returned in triumph to lead an independent Bangladesh, West Pakistani generals faced the humiliation of seeing their men languishing as prisoners of war. With Indian forbearance, Mukti Bahini militants took revenge on civilian, mainly Bihari, collaborators. The causes of the drift to civil war, the extent to which the Pakistani Army activities after 25 March 1971 can be called genocide, and the circumstances of the Indian military intervention on 3 December 1971 are the subject of massive historical controversy. Talbot, Ian (1998), Pakistan, A Modern History, London: Hurst and Company, p. 208, The subsequent brutal army assault on the Iqbal and Jaganath Halls' of Residence in Dhaka University killed hundreds of students. Two days later bodies still smouldered in burnt out rooms, others were scattered ; outside, more floated in a nearby lake. The Army had also turned its firepower on the headquarters of the police and East Pakistan Rifles, ensuring that it brought the peace of the grave to Dhaka. These massacres ensured the 'mutiny' of the East Bengal regiment under Major Zia-ur-Rahman. By the end of April however, the Pakistan Army had 'cleared' the urban areas of rebels throughout the whole of the eastern wing. The human cost had been high. Many of the atrocities the Army committed on its own population were the unspeakable outpourings of racial hatreds and stereotyping. Strict censorship kept West Pakistanis largely in the dark about the actions carried out in the name of national unity. 'Those of us who were serving in East Pakistan', Hasan Zaheer records, 'on our visits to the West found its Press and people totally out of touch with the ground realities in the East Wing and apparently they could not have cared less. [...) No one questioned the aims and objectives of the army action.' As in other instances of state terrorism in South Asia, the violence was totally counterproductive. The Bengali population's desire for self-determination was reinforced rather than diminished. The likelihood of an independent Bangladesh was increased as around 7 million people fled to India, thereby internationalising the crisis in East Pakistan; 900,000 Bengalis crowded into the hill state of Tripura alone, where the indigenous population numbered only 1.5 million. Talbot, Ian; Singh, Gurharpal (2009), The Partition of India, Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–165, ISBN 978-0-521-67256-6, The next major conflict between the two countries occurred in the struggle for Bangladesh's independence in December 1971 – one of the most complex episodes in the Cold War, involving the US, USSR and China. The background to this conflict has been discussed in chapter five and was essentially internal in that it arose from the gross political mismanagement of East Pakistan which has been governed after 1947 as an internal colony by the western Pakistani regimes. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, decided to intervene in East Pakistan mainly because of the exodus of almost 10 million refugees to West Bengal following a military crackdown by the Pakistani army against Bengali nationalists. In a conflict that lasted just twelve days, the Indians captured 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war in East Pakistan and some territory on the western front. Bangladesh was liberated but it had taken the Indian army to secure its independence.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Wont be possible as per WP:OWN.....its why the article has such a big accsibilty problem.Moxy- 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean someone with no edit in the Pakistan article can come galloping in with guns blazing and stick "genocide" in the lead when it is not mentioned in the lead of the Bangladesh article where the violence occurred I'm supposed to say, "Well done" and hand them a barnstar? Please don't make silly remarks Moxy, you should know better. The funny thing is that the editor is a fine editor otherwise; not sure what prompted this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your great at belittling people and is why people simply give up in trying to help the article. Would be great if the article was accessible to all but that's simply not the case here.Moxy- 03:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not belittling anyone, only promoting due weight, which people don't like to wrack their brains over because it means reading basic texts, not the fancy fly by night stuff; and it means paraphrasing with the big picture in mind which most people in Wikipedia do not care to do. I have enough FAC experience to know that. I'm the one who is patiently compiling the sources everywhere (nothing up my sleeve) by hard work. No fancy buzz words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

I strongly suggest changing the description of Pakistan's shared border of Afghanistan from "to the West" to "to the North"—I believe it is more accurate to describe that border as a Northern one (or North-East), and perhaps also to say Pakistan borders Iran "to the West", rather than "to the South-West". Mute0O0 (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I think the descriptions are correct, after reviewing a map. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

PSEDITS (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Please make me able to edit Protected Pages

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. DigitalChutney (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is a country in three regions: Central Asia, which engulfs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Northern Balochistan; Middle East, which encompasses Southern Balochistan and; South Asia, which encircles the regions of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab and Sindh. 203.82.53.115 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support your changes. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

Pakistan as a Republic.Pakistan constitution changes and now Republic of Pakistan. 202.69.11.190 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

Dr Abdulslam was not a Muslim scientist he was Ahmadi. He should be written Ahmadi instead of Muslim . 27.255.58.60 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

2A00:23C7:CA09:2B01:D6D:CBA1:EC7E:6D77 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you add Pashto to official languages as half of Pakistan are Pashtuns?

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 Dec 2021

Gilgit-Baltistan has been given the status of a province. Pakistan now has five provinces. Please update the article to reflect this. [reference] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.187.138 (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The cited source says that this is a proposal and hasn't yet happened. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Republic of Pakistan-Secular

Jinnah the leader of Pakistan also wants secularism and liberalism in this country we as a nation have different religions with 70% muslims 15% hinduism 10% christianity and 5% others religious minorities.Due to some politicians,this made pakistan constitution totally change which should be never happend.Pakistan is secular and remain secular always. Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Our Pakistan is a secular state where many religions live due to some extremists politicians Constitution of pakistan changed.Our jinnah was also want secular and liberal pakistan but due to extremists it not happened.But we are secular and our name is Republic of Pakistan. Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Republic of pakistan secular state Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC for map

Pakistan claimed the former Princely States of Junagarh and Manavadar and the entire territory and water bodies that fall in the Sir Creek region in the westernmost part of India in its new political map released in 2020.

The claiming of Junagarh and Manavadar is not new. See a 1960 stamp, for example.

The map on Commons was updated accordingly to depict these "claimed regions". But there has been edit-warring, and a user has suggested to gain consensus for the change.

So, should we add these "claimed regions" to the map? Peter Ormond 💬 17:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

A clearer map can be found in "In landmark move, PM Imran unveils 'new political map' of Pakistan," Dawn, August 4, 2020. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, as they are claimed by Pakistan. That is literally what the map is supposed to show. Showing that they have claimed the area does not make a judgement on if the claim is legitimate, it simply reports the fact that it is claimed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• No Kashmir is different. It is the oldest dispute before the United Nations. The major powers consider it to be disputed. The reliable academic sources do. I won't bother with parading them here, but you can look at any of the articles on the region or its major subdivisions (Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Aksai Chin). They all have the CIA map by an India-Pakistan consensus. Junagadh was not of importance to Pakistan; its government never protested India's annexation with even a lukewarm zeal. No international map shows the Gir National Park, for example, formerly in Junagadh state to be in a region of Indian administration, but not sovereignty. All major power consider the entire peninsula of Kathiawar to be sovereign Indian territory. I'm perplexed by this RfC. You don't seriously think that had it any merit it would have appeared already in the 15 years I've been watching the India-Pakistan disputes? This does not have a snowball's chance in hell. A waste of time it is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• PS I should add that Pakistan, especially Jinnah was reticent about making a big to-do about Pakistan's claim to Junagadh (or the more distant one to Hyderabad) on the basis of a minority Muslim ruler's choice in a vastly Hindu state because, like Kashmir's claim by India, it went against the spirit of the Partition. As many third-party historians have remarked, had the overwhelmingly Muslim Kashmir valley been a province of British India (i.e. had the British not palmed it off for pennies after the Anglo-Sikh War to an inconsequential Hindu Raja of Jammu), it would have gone lock stock and barrel to Pakistan by the logic of the Partition (on the basis of district-wise Muslim and non-Muslim majorities). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Has this been discussed before (see WP:RFCBEFORE)--RegentsPark (comment) 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• No We use balance of WP:THIRDPARTY sources for everything, including maps. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• No The caption does not say anything about “claims”. It just purports to be a map of Pakistan on the orthographic projection. The description explains dark green to be areas under governmental control, leaving the reader to infer whatever about the remainder of the map. Tendentious and not useful. Strebe (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This orthographic map is part of the standard green and grey globe maps. The conventions for these maps, seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps and widely used throughout en.wiki and elsewhere, are to include claims of sovereignty in light green if those territories are not controlled. If there are serious claims, they should be shown. The question at hand is, are the Junagadh claims serious? They're certainly not as referenced as the Kashmir ones. The MOFA website has a tab called "Jammu and Kashmir dispute", but no other dispute. The foreign policy highlights include "Safeguarding national security and geo-strategic interests, including Kashmir" only. While the claim did appear on the recent map, I am leaning towards not including them on the map, a position of great prominence, unless it can be shown that the claim actually has this prominence for Pakistan. CMD (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• No Commenting since I was involved in the Commons discussion. As mentioned by the RfC opener, more than half a century old dispute with no heft or international cartographic posturing. Gotitbro (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As said above we can realistically assume that the claim to Junagadh, while Pakistan do still claim it is less serious than their claim to Kashmir due to going against the two nation theory. Personally I would exclude it from the main map but maybe have a separate map for the individual section where it talks about the claim to Junagadh. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• No to the main map, by the weight of the 3rd party sources. Yes to including their map in the specific body section covering the Kashmir conflict, labeled and described accurately as their claim, which is disputed. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

2409:4056:283:A413:A7CE:B5C6:9AB6:FFAE (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Kpddg ^(talk) 08:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Islamabad (Federal Capital/Islamabad Capital Territory )

Islamabad (/ɪzˈlɑːməbæd/ (About this soundlisten);[8] Urdu: اسلام آباد, romanized: Islām Ābād) is the capital city of Pakistan, and is administered by the Pakistani federal government as part of the Islamabad Capital Territory. It is the ninth-largest city in Pakistan, while the larger Islamabad–Rawalpindi metropolitan area is the country's third-largest with a population of about 4.1 million people.[5] Built as a planned city in the 1960s to replace Karachi as Pakistan's capital, Islamabad is noted for its high standards of living,[9] safety,[10] and abundant greenery.[11]

The master plan for the city was designed by Greek architect Constantinos Apostolou Doxiadis and divides the city into eight zones, including administrative, diplomatic enclave, residential areas, educational and industrial sectors, commercial areas, as well as rural and green areas which are administered by the Islamabad Metropolitan Corporation with support from the Capital Development Authority. Islamabad is known for the presence of several parks and forests, including the Margalla Hills National Park and the Shakarparian.[12] It is home to several landmarks, with the most notable one being the Faisal Mosque, the largest mosque in South Asia[13] and the fifth-largest in the world. Other landmarks include the Pakistan National Monument and the Democracy Square.[14][15][16]

Islamabad is a Gamma+ city as rated by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network.[17] It has the highest cost of living in Pakistan, and its populace is dominated by middle and upper middle class citizens.[9][18]

The city is home to twenty universities, including Bahria University, Quaid-e-Azam University, PIEAS, COMSATS University and NUST.[19] The city is rated as one of the safest in Pakistan, and has an expansive RFID-enabled surveillance system with almost 2000 active CCTV cameras.[10][20][[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqesar (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephan Keller.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2022

Hello, I wanted to update the data for Pakistan’s economy. The Wikipedia article still shows it as 200 something billion USD, which is false. Pakistan’s economy grew and passed 300 Billion USD quite some time ago and the latest data puts it at 346.76 Billion USD and GDP per capita at 1,666 USD. Here is a tweet of a Pakistani minister on that matter. His name is “Asad Umar” and he tweeted on 20th January: “NAC approved revised estimate of GDP growth for 2020-21 . The growth in 2020-21 was 5.37%. This is the 2nd highest growth in last 14 years. Higher growth versus provisional estimates which were based on jul-mar numbers, was mainly due to very strong industrial growth in apr-jun.” Also for reference, here is an article from “Buisness Recorder” Link to the article: https://www.brecorder.com/news/40148585--AliHasnainBB (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I hope this request can be accepted and we can bring the latest figures of Pakistans robust economic growth to ALL Wikipedia users… Thankyou! Click here to read the Business Recorder Article AliHasnainBB (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not done: We need tertiary sources; thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan GDP

Pakistan's nominal GDP is 435 Billion Dollars as from your source : Economy of Pakistan And Its PPP GDP is 1.36 Trillion $ 39.52.154.85 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

GDP Rank Correction

Pakistan nominal GDP rank is 37th please mention it. 39.52.154.85 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Pakistan’s GDP for the year 2021 is $347bn instead of $296bn.

Source: https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1670673 39.51.249.106 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk) News media is not a reliable source stats must come from UN or world bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark2433086 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

GDP

Source for GDP is not accurate. News media is not a reliable source. Please change it to a more reliable source such as UN or World Bank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shark2433086 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)