Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:18, 6 September 2015

	Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 22, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

Pakistan B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

/Archive 1 'July 19, 2005 — July 12, 2010

The problem with Indian casualty figures

Firstly, both the sources mentioned for Indian Army and State Forces KIA figures are now dead links and therefore, the data is no longer verifiable. Secondly, the Instrument of Accession was signed between Kashmir and India before the latter went to war with Pakistan. After the accession of Kashmir, the JAK Rifles were integrated into the Indian Army and therefore, it is highly improbable that the Government of India will officially publish casualty figures excluding JAK Rifles figures (contrary to what the article currently indicates). Because of the ambiguity and lack of verifiability, I'm removing the mentioned figures and replacing them by U.S. Congress Library figures. --King Zebu (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

background section has serious flaws

all historical sources agree that the valley of Kashmir was a mughal territory but the highlands of Ladakh and the hills of Jammu were FULLY INDEPENDENT DOMAINS.There were several unsuccessful Mughal attacks against Ladakh and only one partially successful adventure where the Ladakhis were assisted in their war against the Tibetans by the Mughals and agreed to pay the Mughals some taxes in return.This promise was promptly withdrawn by Ladakh and it reverted to its fully independent status.Similarly the mountain based kingdoms of Jammu,owing to their geographical location ,in vry heavily hilly and forested terrain forever remained beyonf the reach of Mughal central asian cavalry tactics..This was the primary reason for those places staying Hindu.Any Mughal involvement ,at its peak,was as allies at best.

Moreover the Sikhs have been projected as invaders and interventionists in the background section.The truth is,it is Sikh activity that countered orthodox jihadi proselytization by the Mughals from completely eradicating Hinduism from the valley of Kashmir.

Greetings from Skylark and congrats on your good-work for our motherland as a soldier and now as a wikipedian.Please let me know your thoughts. Skylark2008 (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Skylark2008

Can you please cite some reliable sources for your claim? Shovon (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Check any good work by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar,Jadunath Sarkar or by Airavat Singh.Also check the history of Ladakh from any Bitish historian's work.Any work unaffialiated to marxist communist clique is going to attest to te truth.Thank you Skylark2008 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

Please do add WP:RS, but follow WP:CITE when doing so. Thank you so very much. --S. Rich (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2011 (UT

I am challenging a very nebulous comment on this important article based on a very well recorded event namely the death of a Mughal emperor whose defeat by the Marathas and demise is widely held to be the start of the decline of the said empire.There is very little chance that the empire gained ANY new territory half a century after his death.By this time the Maratha and Sikh powers had acquired ascendancy over entire South Asia.As for the verifiability of the date of Aurangzeb's death please refer to any historical source. Thank you.-Skylark

Skylark, you'll need to include specific sources and citations in your request. Misplaced Pages is a volunteer organization and doesn't have formal resources to follow up on edit requests. My suggestion is that you state clearly what changes you wish to see (i.e., specify the exact text you think should be used in the article) and include reliable sources, properly cited. Without that, you're unlikely to see any changes. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am contesting the statement"These small states, ruled by Rajput kings, were vassals of the Mughal Empire since 1757." I am challenging a very nebulous comment on this important article based on a very well recorded event namely the death of a Mughal emperor whose defeat by the Marathas and demise is widely held to be the start of the decline of the said empire.There is very little chance that the empire gained ANY new territory half a century after his death.By this time the Maratha and Sikh powers had acquired ascendancy over entire South Asia.As for the sources they are as follows- 1.Mughal history- Lane-Poole, Stanley (1906). History of India: From Mohammedan Conquest to the Reign of Akbar the Great (Vol. 3). London, Grolier society.  Lane-Poole, Stanley (1906). History of India: From Reign of Akbar the Great to the Fall of Moghul Empire (Vol. 4). London, Grolier society.  Owen, Sidney J (1912). The Fall of the Mogul Empire. London, J. Murray.  Burgess, James (1913). The Chronology of Modern India for Four Hundred Years from the Close of the Fifteenth Century, A.D. 1494–1894.. John Grant, Edinburgh. 2.Maratha history- Kasar, D.B. – Rigveda to Raigarh making of Shivaji the great, Mumbai: Manudevi Prakashan (2005)  Apte, B.K. (editor) – Chhatrapati Shivaji: Coronation Tercentenary Commemoration Volume, Bombay: University of Bombay (1974–75)  James Grant Duff – A History of the Mahrattas, 3 vols. London, Longmans, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green (1826) ISBN 81-7020-956-0 3.Sikh history-^ The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion, (Docherty,p.187)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Lord of the Five Rivers, By Jean-Marie Lafont. (Oxford University Press. Date:2002, ISBN 0-19-566111-7). Skylark2008 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

I emphasize that the Mughal state had NO EFFECTIVE control over the modern state of Jammu-Kashmir outside of the Kashmir valley.The modern geo-political unit ,as we know it was forged by the Dogra Rajput clan of the Jammu tract.They had their traditional seat of power in the Jammu district.From there they spread their influence all over Jammu.Then they helped the Sikhs in ejecting the Afghans from the valley of Kashmir where they had lodged themselves after ejecting the Mughals.At this time the Dogras accepted Sikh suzerainty.Thus the territories they conquered became parts of the Sikh empire.After the decline of the Sikhs,the Dogras negotiated directly with the British East India Company.Thus they became sovereign power in the Jammu tracts and the Kashmir valley.Using this as a base they eventually conquered Ladakh,Baltistan,Gilgit,the Dardic states of Chitral,Hunza etc.Ultimately all these disparate ethnic areas were brought under a unified political unit based in Srinagar under the Dogra Rajputs.Thus the entity called Jammu-Kashmir was literally created by the Dogra Rajputs.Any pretense of Mughal power in the state outside of Kashmir valley and its subsequent influence in shaping the political trajectory of the area is frivolus and potentially p.o.v.Any Mughal influence can be conclusively proved in the Kashmir valley,no doubt,but that’s the limit of the said influence.All the other political units in the area were independent and contributed to the politico-ethno-cultural tapestry of the region.Subsequently all these differences contributed to the complexity of the question of the inclusion of the different parts of the state to India or Pakistan.Thanks.Skylark2008 (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

This assertion of Skylark2008 is refuted on Page536 of "History of the Panjab hill states", Volume 1 By John Hutchison, Jean Philippe Vogel, the citation in the article (ser 6). Also see pg 541 regarding waning of Mughal influence after Panjab captured by Durani. AshLin (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats a nice reference.However they only bear out the point that any effective influence by the Mughals on Jammu area was transitory and uncertain.And certainly NOT after 1757 as the article states.Any influence was hotly contested and permanently thrown off after a point of time.The influence on Kashmir velley is however unquestionable.BTW thx to Ashlin for this reference.Skylark2008 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark I suggest changing the date 1765 as it is clearly misleading as to the start date of Mughal influence-being effectively a period of Mughal decline.Further I suggest changing the status of the Jammu hill states to that of autonomous entities prior to the emergence of Sikh power.Mention may also be made of the continuous resistance offered from these otherwise small states to successive invasions from the North -West.Awaiting other editors'opinion.Skylark2008 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark

This is POV bashing. The British reference that I mentioned explicitly states the position that the hill states were

vassals with princes as hostages in the Mughal courts. The gazetteer also states how the influence was lost - all in the history of Jammu state. AshLin (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC) That is not POV bashing.First of all,the date 1757 is completely off the point,as is even evident by the linked-article.Next,the keeping of the princes as hostages n the Mughal court is a direct evidence that the said tracts were NOT tributary vassals but active enemy states.The hostage keeping strategy was used to keep in check an unpacified enemy-as was in the case of Tipu Sultan many years later.The sons of Tipu were kept as hostages by the British as a gurrantee for Tipu's non-aggression.Once again ,modern Indian histriography as mentioned in the above sources,has conclusively argued that much of Indian history was deliberately misinterpreted by the colonial power to further its interests.Even going by the source,which ,I think is quite a good one,the date 1757 as laid out in the article is grossly wrong and the status of the hill states was always autonomous.The first true integration of those states was by the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh.The credit for building up Jammu and Kashmir state goes to the Dogra family of Jammu. Skylark2008 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark BTW thnks to whoever heard me and changed the offensive date to "since the time of Akbar....".At least a part of the wrong is undone.Waiting for someone to put the political status of those hill-states in the proper perspective.Skylark2008 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Skylark.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kashmir-information.com/Storm/chapter7.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 10:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

removed misleading text

removed POV misleading text after verification from the cited text in the article http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/g/019pho000000394u00076000.html . The Cited texts clearly stated that Ranjit Singh was the Ruler of the area before the British Conquered it and placed Their own ruler. The British had placed their own rulers at a number of provinces that they had conquered so that the administration of the newly conquered state would be easier for them . The Article stated that there waas no Ruler of the resion prior to this . this is wrong information, the area was not without a ruler. King Ranjit Singh was the ruler of the region. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence you removed never stated that Kashmir was without rule. It stated that the position called 'Mahraja of Kashmir' was not there before British. If you think the previous ruler, Ranjit Singh, used to go by that title, you should give a citation. Otherwise that statement is correct and not POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The Queen of Great Britain is also considered as the Queen of scotland etc, she does not need a seperate title for that as its included in the province, same is the case with RAnjit Singh, you can read the article about him for more info . hope that answers your question. kindly remove that sentence, which infers that there was no ruler of Kashmir as that is not the case. Even you are aware of this fact as you have read the citation. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The same way, Ranjit Singh may also go by many titles but not by this one. It certainly does not say or give a hint that there was no ruler at all. The sentence very clearly states that there was no such position or title (which is not misleading). These two things are different. Just like you can't call the Queen of Britain as Maharani of Britain because that's not the title she goes by (may be you can do that when you write history in Urdu or Hindi, since it would translate to that, but not in English. And this is the Engilsh wikipedia). If you dispute that he used to go by that title, then you need to give citation as the burden of proof is on you in that case (WP:BURDEN). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well whoever made Gulab Singh The Ruler of Kashmir, The Fact is Gulab Singh was the Ruler of Kashmir, even if you continue denying it. And SinceKAshmir was a part of RAnjit Singhs Empire , Ranjit Singh was the King of the Province before that. I have also added some of tags as I feel that the section is not based on Verifiable citations but based on Forum Talk.Hence i am challenging these. I would welcome If proper citations are provided for these. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was not your edit. You are trying to change the topic. Yes he was the ruler of Kashmir even though appointed by the British. But that wasn't the discussion going on here. It was about the title information that you removed. Note that this is not a forum but a place to discuss for the improvement of this article. Discussing who became the ruler and how is forum discussion. And hey, you can't add to every single phrase, that paragraph is already cited. Especially the fact that the British appointed the next ruler. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed for texts stating Pakistans view in the article

Well Everyone on WikiPedia can challenge COntent if they are unverifiable and the content appears to be a 'Forum chat'. I have also added some of tags as I seriously feel that the section is not based on Verifiable citations but based on Forum Talk. The section needs a cleaning and proper citations . There are some serious claims made in the article that has to be properly cited in order to avoid removal. At the moment its purely based on forum chat and opinions, the other serious claims made in the article needs thorough cleaning and redressal Hence i am challenging these very serious claims. for e.g.

• It has only one Citations that says the ruler of Kashmir was appointed by the british .
• Pakistan was of the view that the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army .
• it held that the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler.
• There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir"
• Pakistan decided to send its troop but pakistani general refuse
• General saying India under British crown so will not attack
• The Capture of Gilgit , baltistan chitral needs citations as well

Its an established fact that prior to British rule Kashmir was a princely state and always had a ruler or was a part of an empire. I would welcome If proper citations are provided for these. I would also ask Hassanhn5 not to revert the citations as we know reverting such edits can be claimed as edit war. its not upto u to present them .other editors can help giving the citations and improving the sections. The presence of citations will improve the article and the content will change accordingly so that it does not appear a forum chat. Kindly dont make your own rules like you cant add citations tags read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• I also Challenge the edit summary presented by user is misleading as at this moment the whole para is NOT AT ALL CITED and Only one statement that says the ruler of Kashmir was appointed by the british is cited with a verifiable reference. Kindly lets not make attempts to mislead others by using terms such as Well CITED para when in reality is not. We can clearly . If you are not happy with the number of tags then i have removed two of them and pointed tags only where serious claims are made --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can't prove your edit, it doesn't mean that you put the burden of proof on the wrong side. You made an edit removing a sentence from the article without giving citation or proof for the removal and now you are adding citation needed tags to every single phrase of the paragraph. It is on you to prove if there was a position known as "Maharaja of Kashmir" before the British since you are the one who made the first edit to challenge the text already in the article. For rest of the phrases, there's a template on the top of the article asking to add inline citations. That is a better way than adding a magnitude of tags to make the paragraph unreadable. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Your edits have been reverted 3 times. Beware of WP:3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• as per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neither did i add nor did i restore material. Its you who has done it without proper citations. I hope u understand whats stated there,. And stop blaming me for everything, if you are supporting those text, why dont you support it with proper citations that is expected and do the community a favour rather than blindly Supporting a text just because it satisfies your own POV. since its good to give time to editors to find citations thats why i placed tags which you have removed repeatedly .On my part I have tried looking for citations but all the source i found was Forum TALK and hence i strongly support removal and clearance of this section that is presenting Forum talk on an Imp Article. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, there's a citation needed tag on the top of the article. That just means the article needs a lot of citations. Placing a magnitude of tags makes the article unreadable. That's disruptive editing. It is interesting how you quote things in parts. You should read that full section. And the article states that the British appointed him as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" and not that he took the title of the heredity rulers. The information you are removing is not added/restored material. It is negative implication according to the citation. If you want it to imply that this is wrong, you need to give in a citation, and I'll be okay with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention made of the Maharaja of kashmir's role in the article? It appears to completely ignore what he did. Or is someone trying to cover up on Misplaced Pages? Satanclawz (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag

I have removed the flag of Azad Kashmir and also listed the tribal militias as a separate belligerent group because, lacking appropriate sources and a detailed discussion in the body of the article, we are assuming that the Pashtun tribes and the Pakistani state were one and the same (but putting the flag of Azad Kashmir contradicts this). Also there was no such entity as Azad Kashmir when the war broke out so we cannot use the flag here. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is well documented that the initial tribal invasion consisted on Pashtun regulars who were incited by Pakistani Army officers and aided by recently demobilised ex-servicemen of Poonchie Mussalman descent who were stiffened with a few Pakistani Army officers. Hence it can on no circumstance be called a freedom fighter movement especially as the tribals ravaged the cities they liberated such as Mirpur. Azad Kashmir flag is meaningless keeping in mind that the state formed after the War was over. AshLin (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see American War of Independence for reference, although the united states was not there at that time, but the flag is put in place to represent the state that would later be formed. As for the tribal fighters the reference has been given. As far as I remember this article also mentions uprisings in kashmir to over through the maharaja... those would count as freedom fighters. As I've not yet backed up my claim of uprisings by a reference (which might already be present in the article), I'll agree for it to be Tribal militias for now. It is POV to mention them as Pakistan backed as all were not. Did I read chitral scouts some where in the article text? Also, a third column for the tribal belligerents is completely out of question because backed by Pakistani state or not, they were on the same side. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I voluntarily follow WP:1RR so I'm not going to revert until we are in agreement. Comparing the United States and Pakistan is an apples to oranges comparison. The US first declared independence and then went to war; at the end of the war they emerged victorious as a separate state. No such thing happened in this war. Kashmir is still claimed by India entirely. Additionally there was no United Nations in 1776. But let's not make this a forum and let's just stick to sources. I would ask that you:

1. Provide sources for stating that the flag of Azad Kashmir existed at the outset of the war and that the UN or a majority of the nations of the world recognized the flag back then or is recognized now.
2. Provide sources for stating that the tribal militia backed by the Pakistani state were one and the same with the Pakistani state (our current neutral source already says During Pakistan's first war with India in 1947-48, sparked by the territorial dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the military's use of tribal lashkars (tribal militias) set a dangerous precedent of relying on non-state actors to settle scores with a much larger and more powerful neighbor.
3. That you take a look at a well developed article like India to understand that we can only start editing article leads and infoboxes after we've ironed out the details in the body of the article (per WP:LEAD).
4. Once your bring your sources to the table, we are going to have to apply WP:WEIGHT to figure out the majority and minority viewpoints (the minority viewpoints certainly have their place as explained by Jimbo Wales in an e-mail.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Only after this process is complete can we let your edits stand. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The point you gave about US and Pakistan is a misjudgement. You are comparing the wrong things that's why you're getting the wrong implication. I'm referring to the comparison of the flags and not for the other things especially whether they became separate state or not. The question that Kashmir is entirely claimed by India (or Pakistan), which are both verifiable claims, has nothing to do with who was fighting in the war. United Nations has no significance here either since its not a matter of the Kashmir dispute but Kashmir war and UN doesn't come into question till ceasefire. I'd like you to check the wikipedia trend that those names are generally given to the belligerents which they refer to themselves as. The flag of Azad Kashmir was a result of the war, i.e. it represents the resistance that formed the self governed body. Whether it's recognized as a country or state by any one at all is not in question here since I didn't claim that. I'm talking about it as an entity (administrative or otherwise).

About the sources for tribal forces being on the same side with Pakistan, I think it's trivial and WP:BURDEN would be on you to say otherwise. The main fact that supports this is that there were only two sides, one fighting against the accession of Kashmir to India and one for it. Giving it a third column would amount to adding content and require references on your behalf. Also, it will be misleading since a third column would implicate a third party with its own motives fighting against both India and Pakistan. See the bangladesh liberation war for instance, India and East Pakistan are added in the same column since they were on the same side i.e. separation of East Pakistan as Bangladesh.

I'd like to quote that former princely state forces were also acting to back up Pakistan:

The Gilgit and Baltistan territories were secured for Pakistan by the Gilgit Scouts and the forces of the state of Chitral, another princely state that had acceded to Pakistan.

Please note that I'm not pushing any POV here, just following the format that includes flags in the belligerents section, and this one seemed most appropriate as I gave the comparison of US. All other separations also usually represent the flag of the later formed entity unless a different flag was present for that war. If there's any other flag that you can refer to, I'm ok with removing this one.

Further more, here are some references that refer to the tribal fighters as freedom fighters or in some refers to them as tribal fighters in context of them being later joined in war by Pakistan (and supported not backed by Pakistan). . The references include neutral and Pakistani references both. I think the word freedom fighters as per wikipedia's own defination as well as the references is neutral enough to be used. Also, it is now clear that Pakistan joined the war of freedom/tribal fighters and it was not the other way round. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

initially, the tribal intervention was spontaneous, as confirmed by reliable secondary sources. soon after the signing of the instrument of accession by the maharaja, the tribal militias were used by the pakistani army. it's also a fact that part of the state forces of kashmir rebelled and joined the pakistani side, exemplified by the gilgit scouts who were led by major william brown (a hero of present-day gilgit-baltistanis). however, all this does not justify the inclusion of the azad kashmir-flag. as noted by zuggernaut, the lead and info boxes summarize the main content of the article. on the other hand, it seems that the poonch rebels did indeed establish a "azad kashmir"-government... but instead of using google books to find convenient lines i suggest you do some serious and proper scholarly research on this issue. read reliable secondary sources thoroughly, investigate, and at the end, include your findings in the main text. after that, you'll might have a case for inclusion of the flag. this is the only way to write a proper and solid encyclopedia.-- mustihussain  18:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mustihussain, please provide specific reliable sources for the "initial" tribal intervention. That would be useful. AshLin (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I got sucked in to this article following a link at one of the Misplaced Pages noticeboards. I now need to exit this article due to my own reasons. Except the BBC, the sources provided by lTopGunl will not pass the reliability test (no information on who their editorial boards are, what kind of reputation they have in the publishing world, etc). The BBC source does not call them freedom fighters. I have watchlisted the page but I will stop editing it for now. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if there's a problem with the bbc that's a going to be general RS issue because it's quoted widely on wiki. Also, they didn't call them freedom fighters, but tribal militia in context of acting without Pakistan's backing. Anyway, there are other sources backing both the word freedom fighter and the initial non involvement of Pakistan.

Mustihussain, I added the flag as per the example of other Independence wars, 2 of which I cited for comparison here. If there was a different flag, and a citation is presented, I have no issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

you missed my point. if you read the article about the american war of independence you'll notice that the congress' declaration of independence and the founding of the united states is clearly mentioned. the american flag in the infobox is fine as it summarizes the content of the article. this is not the case here. the article does not mention the founding of azad kashmir at all.-- mustihussain  16:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then lets see if we can get another flag for the militia. Although you're right, but the result was the formation of Azad Kashmir. That is represented by the flag. In anycase, if that has to be replaced, better look for a new flag icon. At declaration of independence; it is very much in the context of the rebelling Kashmiris declaring independence (which they had). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

you don't have to look for another flag. as i mentioned above, it seems that the poonch rebels did indeed form a azad kashmir government in october 1947...as i suggested before: look into this matter by studying pertinent reliable secondary sources and investigate. if this is confirmed, make the additions to the main text.-- mustihussain  17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright. That figures. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Indian soldiers fighting in 1947 war.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The POV template

Can either of the editors who keep editwarring this shitty template into this article explain how a war between two nations for territorial conquest of Kashmir has anything to do with separatism? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The template is not POV, as was determined by consensus, so you should stop referring to it as such. The war was started to liberate/free Kashmir from India, so the Kashmir template is relevant. Mar4d (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war was started as Pakistan wanted it's territory. It has nothing to do with separatism so I will remove it again as you again fail to actually show a reason for it to be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Precisely, to seperate Jammu and Kashmir from India. It has everything to with seperatism, so I will restore it again as you fail to actually show a reason for it not to be here. Mar4d (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on you to show how it belongs here, not I. It was a war of territorial conquest, it had fuck all to do with separatism or freedom for the people of Kashmir. So it will go, and it will remain gone. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The 47 war was incited by the separatists as repeatedly stated about the war around here. The template is relevant on this article. Also do not wrongly accuse me of edit war again, I made a single revert. You're on a civility notice. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war is relevant to the separatist movement, as this movement has a background that the Kashmiris didn't want to be part of India when India was partitioned and with this war India occupied part of Kashmir. And from then a struggle for separatism started. --SMS 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• @DS: Since you refuse to get it, there is no burden on me to convince you otherwise. You could do away with your threats, it will remain. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The burden is entirely on those wishing to add anything to an article, TG I did not accuse you of anything, please refrain from even talking to me to prevent further issues. This war had nothing to do with the separatist movement, it was a war of conquest. The template will go.Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The war was started and fought by Pakistani forces (Military and Tribal) and not Kashmiris as is being claimed above.--DBigXray 17:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not one of the objecting users here has presented any credible or genuine reason behind their claim that the war is not an effort related to Kashmir separatism from India. The recent removal of the template in the article is disruptive behaviour, with the user clearly not able to make a proper case at the discussion here. The article shall be restored to its original version and WP:DR needs to be followed. Mar4d (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the last time I tell you this, YOU need to prove it belongs, follow policy. Your slowmo edit war will be reported as will your continuing to ignore policy. It was a war of conquest, not a war for separatism your saying it was a war to free Kashmir from India is WP:OR. And no, WP:DR does not need be followed, but policy does. Meet the WP:BURDEN Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Mar4d Inserted a POV template B , another editor reverted R and now we discuss D. so we must follow WP:BRD without any further edit warring. --DBigXray 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is bad enough he edit wars this template in with no consensus, he also removed reliably sourced content I had added yesterday. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 3#Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Request for Comment, TParis (talk · contribs) endorsed the close, writing:

I'll endorse Armburst's closure. There is rough consensus to remove the template although I understand why you would ask for a second opinion. At it's worst, the same handful of people are in each of these types of India-Pakistan RFCs and it's not helpful when it is just them. Peter S Strempel's comment would've made an excellent close rationale.--v/r - TP 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor has added a template to this article which apparently deals with the Kashmir separatist movement. There is now a dispute as to how a war of conquest by Pakistan has anything to do with Kashmir separatism. Does this template belong on this article?

Comments

• Remove Pakistan invaded and lead the militias who took part in the conflict. This conflict was a war of territorial conquest, it has nothing to do with separatism for the people of Kasmhir. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Pakistan attacked Kashmir because it believed that Kashmir should belong to Pakistan. I agree with Darkness Shines, it had nothing to do with separatism. --sarvajna (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, see below the precise reasons of separatism in Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Four broad categories which are attributed as reasons for separatism in Kashmir, according to Sumit Ganguly, quoted in Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age, p.152 by Robert Wirsing:

1. Involvement of Pakistan and claims on Kashmir in the conflict (if your argument is to be accepted, we are on that very article right now)

Followed by these three obvious ones:

2. The Indian state (its misrule, repression, and denial of Kashmiri self-determination)

3. The Kashmiri nationalist movement (both secular and religious, the "emergence of ethnic subnationalism in Kashmir and its challenge to the Indian state")

4. Ganguly proposes that the best explanation of the origins of the secessionist insurgency in Kashmir is to be found in structural dichotomy - "the increase in political mobilization of Kashmiris against a background of institutional decay in India." Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And those have what exactly to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

But thank you for the source, which says on p173 "When preparations got under way in Pakistan during that month to lay forcible claim to the state by transporting several thousand armed Pashtun tribal raiders from the North-West frontier to the state border" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing Kashmiri separatism? Have you already forgotten what you started this RfC on? :o) Mar4d (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is on whether or not the template which is about separatism has anything to do with this war, the source you provided shows it was not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the Sumit Ganguly source you are trying to quote, it says that the wars were bilateral conflicts The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace in page 3 it says The people of either Pakistan-held "Azad Kashmir" or Indian-held Kasmir were not active participants in the bilateral conflicts. Indeed in 1965.... one more for you

India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute page 113 Accounts of the Kashmiri Muslim separatism uprising in the popular media generally date its formal onset to a series of antigovernment demonstartions, strikes, and sporadic violent attacks on isolated government targets that began at scattered locations in the valley of Kasmir in July 1988 This war of 1947 has nothing to do with Kashmir separatism, it was started much later by the pakistan assisted groups --sarvajna (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Remove The war was initiated and fought by Pakistani forces (Military and Tribal) nothing to do with separatists.--DBigXray 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with seperatists"?.... nothing can be further from the truth. Mar4d (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Relation of 1947 era with Kashmiri separatism:

After India and Pakistan were partitioned in 1947, the Hindu maharajah of Kashmir elected to have Kashmir join India, despite its overwhelmingly Muslim majority population which were opposed to this move. The United Nations ordered a referendum on the matter which was never held. Kashmiri separatists, allegedly armed and supported by Pakistan, have been fighting ever since for their independence from India and many would apparently prefer independence from Pakistan also. This dispute has its roots in nationalism, although it is flavoured by religious sources.

— Jamila Hussain, Islam: Its Law and Society (2004), p. 60

Mar4d (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• This quote doesn't say anything about this war. You questioned how 'Pakistan Murdabad‎‎' relates to India; here you cite something else which has nothing to do with this! Now I am sure either you have issues relating things or you are intentionally pushing it! Nobody can win over with baseless comments -- ɑηsuмaη 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Actually I also thought exactly the way you did that how this is related to war, but re-reading it made me understand the relation. You may also consider reading the above passage again and this time see how ever since is used in it. --SMS 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Still it makes no difference to relate here. -- ɑηsuмaη 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per a number of sources that relate the 1947 war with the separatist movement (like, ). And the answer to the question "Why the separatist movement started?" starts from the First Kashmir War 1947. The Separatist movement is a consequence of this war (besides many other incidents), so this template is very much relevant here and navigates a user interested in reading the relevant content. --SMS 22:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: sources are present for separatism.. the removal was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Remove It is irrelevant here. Kashmir conflict nav serves the purpose. -- ɑηsuмaη 17:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Its completely irrelevant. The template itself is in a very bad state, and the only purpose it is doing here is to push POV. As said by others, an invasion by another country has nothing to do with the so called "separatist movement". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 08:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources say something else. "Invasion" is Indian view point. Or if you think Pakistan invaded India, that's a lot of territory captured by Pakistan in that case... this should be titled as a crushing victory then... I think you'll support the opposite view when that comes to discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think, its your wish. It does not matters who invaded whom, the thing is this template is irrelevant. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 08:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is why Misplaced Pages has become an untrustworthy source of information! Almost everyone in this thread should step away and let less involved editors reassert an encyclopaedic perspective, which is necessarily dispassionate about localised interpretations.

It is a perspective that should have no regard for the nationalist, separatist, or chauvinist sensitivities of the hot-heads with emotional attachments to these events. Why would anyone but the people involved in this dispute care about whom to blame for what actually happened? Cite facts about what happened, and point-counterpoint interpretations. Then be done with it and move on.

Don't bother lecturing me about history or some peculiar neckbeard interpretation of Misplaced Pages etiquette. I am here solely because of the automatic invitation to comment initiated by the template. I have no desire to be involved in this willful effort to politicise and re-ignite ethnic shitfights. Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

POV in lead

I have removed a highly one-sided paragraph from the lead which ignores the dispute that existed on India's accession of Kashmir and only depicts the accounts of the war post-invasion. Discuss here and do not revert. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• There was a ref already in that section for that. i have also added an inline ref for it, its from a neutral encyclopedia. I thought you were fond of WP:BRD and you here are following BRRRRRD--DBigXray 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  That was a massive source falsification, the source never said the war started on with Pakistan troops invasion, neither did it say that Pakistan sent its forces to suppress an uprising in southeast of kingdom, please don't edit war without reading/understanding the source. --SMS 12:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't find any such thing. Please quote the text then. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• if you have a problem with the word Starting, should you be removing the whole para ? that is content removal using a disguise.--DBigXray 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole paragraph has a problem. The beginning of the war has been falsified and the article already states the actual one. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase the war started when rest of it is factual, properly sourced and neutral enough. please present a better lead here, that you feel is neutral enough so that we can discuss it here--DBigXray 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please make it clear on what needs to be added or deleted? The whole discussion seems to be very vague for a person like me who has started watching this page very recently. Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is over this edit which removed well sourced content. I have modified the phrase using this. the source is an encyclopedia from a neutral third party. --DBigXray 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot DBig I do not see any issue with what you have added, it cannot be called as falsified paragraph as it has good source. Without that paragraph there would not be proper continuity in the lead, we should mention about how/when the war was started. -sarvajna (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not added the content but yes i restored it when it was wrongly removed. agree with you on your comment above.--DBigXray 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think you've read then how the war started. There was an element of separatism. The "invasion by Pakistan" is an Indian POV. We've to follow a neutral POV. Sources can be cherry picked. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please get you so called neutral POV sources and do not try to push pakistani POV without them. The source mentioned is very much neutral. -sarvajna (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pushing Pakistani POV with neutral sources... lol funny statement. Do not inflame the discussion by alleging POV pushing which I did not on any editor directly rather on content. Keep your comments on the content. WP:NPOV is a core policy and you are not going to get around that in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been here for sometime to know that NPOV is a core policy, the content was added/corrected by an editor and this is what you said The "invasion by Pakistan" is an Indian POV. Sources can be cherry picked.. As you said lets not inflame the discussion, please get better sources if you feel that the source already present in not neutral(which I do not know why you claim that). -sarvajna (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• SMS, accuse me of source falsification again and I will be most displeased. The source most certainly does support the edit. And it is noT an "Indian POV" it is an historic fact that Pakistan invaded using the spurious excuse of an uprising in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

initial indian operations in the valley of Kashmir

there were some fantastic battles fought in the early phase, it seems that it would worth some more detail such as we find here.

http://ikashmir.net/pakraid1947/shalteng.html http://www.sikhreview.org/december2003/book.htm

The book pays glowing tributes to the bravery and gallantry of officers, JCO’s and Jawans who faced the hardships and challenges cheerfully and never flinched from service to their country. Indeed 1 Sikh saved Srinagar in 1947. Amarinder Singh is all praise for it, “By their courage, skill and devotion to duty, they had prevented the city from falling into the hands of the raiders and denied them the airfield….”

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/sandhu.html

it was a pretty fantastic set of battles fought by a small units, ahead of the bigger fights.

--Patbahn (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian Defence Review has a nice excerpt of the battle for srinigar http://www.indiandefencereview.com/interviews/defence-of-srinagar-1947/2/ including the actions of 1 SIKH in holding the road and airfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a link to the Misplaced Pages article on the battle of Badgam --Patbahn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Background Needs serious correction

"Prior to 1815, the area now known as "Jammu and Kashmir" comprised 22 small independent states (16 Hindu and 6 Muslim) carved out of territories controlled by the Amir (King) of Afghanistan, combined with those of local small rulers. These were collectively referred to as the "Punjab Hill States". These small states, ruled by Rajput kings, were variously independent, vassals of the Mughal Empire since the time of Emperor Akbar or sometimes controlled from Kangra state in the Himachal area. Following the decline of the Mughals, turbulence in Kangra and Gorkha invasions, the hill states fell successively under the control of the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh." The person who introduced this paragraph conveniently forgets that of the hill states, only Jammu, Ladakh, Hunza, Nagar and Gilgit are in the current territory of Kashmir and rest of them are actually in the current Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. I don't know where Chitral, Amb and those fit in. And this paragraph is unwarranted since the at the time of the discussion, only three kingdoms existed in Kashmir area - Kashmir, Hunza and Nagar; Hunza and Nagar as vassals of Jammu and Kashmir. If at all the history starts, it should start with events happening from 1920 or 1930 and not 1815. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.251.248 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Indian victory in this war Pakistan got victory because half of Kashmir occupied by Pakistan and India also loose it Asfand yar Asfand (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

The infobox seems to have a number of issues. As far as I can see there are three major issues:

• The "territorial changes" seem to be highly biased and spreads misinformation as it tries to depict as if India had control over the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir before the war which by no means is true, the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Maharaja of J&K only in 26th October while the war began on 22nd October. Moreover it uses the word "conquer" to show Pakistan's territorial gains which seems quite improper in any military scenario in the modern age. Therefore both the words "conquer" and "retained control" used to represent the territorial gains of Pakistan and India respectively are biased and do not represent the true scenario. The proper wording for both these cases should be "gained control" since none of the countries had control over the regions they gained control of prior to the war.

• The flag of the modern state of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan) has been used to represent the tribal militia which played part on the Pakistani side. This is misrepresentation due to the fact that there was no entente called Azad Kashmir during that time nor did the tribal militias have an unified flag which could be used to represent them. The flag needs to be removed.

• Citations are long due for the number of casualties and losses sustained on both sides (excluding the number killed on the Indian side). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Papa Boy (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, if you want wording changes, please find reliable sources that use the wording you support. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The article makes clear that India intervened on behalf of the former ruler of the State whereas Pakistan intervened on behalf of the rebels. So "retained control" for one and "conquered" for the other are perfectly legitimate. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• High-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board