Talk:Afghanistan–India relations

soft poweR?
is there no mention of India's soft power in afghanistan? it exists on the 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul page. Lihaas (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan map is wrong, u are missing a small neck that extends to the rights towards China and POK. Look carefully u will see that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murali83 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

India and Afghanistan have never had any historic or traditional alliance. in fact India supported the invading soviet union in the past so honestly it has been the opposite of whats stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.65.37 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead - RAW allegations/denial
The allegations do not elaborate on comments from a person or quotes (and that would be more suitable for body) and the denial should follow the same for WP:WEIGHT. -- lTopGunl (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Afghanistan–India relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530083317/http://www.cfr.org/publication/14969/ to http://www.cfr.org/publication/14969/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=4123c64e-80c4-4098-b113-0a92b90d19a2&ParentID=1fd4d4bc-4b86-4045-83d7-8e0895d184cb&&Headline='40+dead+in+Indian+embassy+attack'
 * Added tag to http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?735547

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afghanistan–India relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830031416/http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php to http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This page is completely biased in India's favour with strong Anti Pakistan sentiment.s
Hi all, Can we have a complete review of this page. There seems to certainly be an agenda at place here with the links, references, and language that is not neutral to the average reader. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Dubious removals
Recent edits (here and here) dubiously removed content related to Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Abdul Jabbar Khan. Eminent anti-colonial leaders who are important in the history of all three countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan). The basis to remove them was that they relate only to Pakistan, absurdist since the content talks about shared colonial history and further of direct relations between them and India in the post-colonial period (history is not territorially bound regardless); and another basis was that Afghanistan is multi-ethnic, a weird way to vouch for obfuscation of a predominant ethnic group which was not the sole basis of the content anyhow. I have restored it per WP:STABLE and on the basis of no reasonable rationale as to its removal. Gotitbro (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * They are relevant to British India (Pre 1947) and NWFP only (now Pakistan). All literature on them talks for a united India and stuff and colonial rule of the BRITISH INDIAN EMPIRE.


 * Afghanistan was not part of that history in that particular era.


 * And also, complaining of dubious removals when you yourself removed relevant content lol ? (from a Pakistan perspective)


 * Observing you following me around this week and undoing my edits on atleast 4 articles (which were very POVpushy in nature, uncalled for in many places), I don't expect you to agree with me Uzek (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * And the "Afghanistan is multiethnic" was to whoever edited this into the article, since clearly in their head, Afghanistan is a Pashtun dominated country (when it's not). Uzek (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And why would it being only about British India not be relevant (which anyways not the case here)? This is a wholistic reader not limited to only post-independence history WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. As to the removals for "perspective" the rationale had already been provided here and has been elaborated below. And lastly, a user restoring the edits of chronic sockpuppeteers here and there is obviously going to raise concerns, hardly anything POV about reverting socks (WP:BANREVERT and WP:DENY exist for a reason). Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, this has been inserted by the same editor:

I don't think an elaboration of dossiers is needful when allegations have already been set out; and with ISKP nothing short of WP:HISTRS should be acceptable especially not news. The quote of Rahmatullah Nabil is also WP:NOCONTEXT as to in what aspect it was stated ("against Pakistan" is ambiguous in and of itself) and it is further sourced to an opinion piece making it even more of a no go.

Lastly, from consensus hereon this Talk page itself (see the above section "") allegations should be followed by denials; this is especially true if no experts have vetted them. This is what the situation was before the insertion of the text above. inviting past contributors for further comments on this and the above. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, can you please link to the disputed edits? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the terror support allegations, first added here, then restored first here, then here.


 * For removal of Ghaffar and Jabbar Khan: here and here. Gotitbro (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

First, you just repeated that I consider this to be post independence history, when I clearly said it is also pre 1947 history of the "British Indian Empire" of which NWFP was a part of. Afghanistan was not part of it. Abdul Ghaffar Khan (+the other guy) and his anti colonial struggle in this era is not relevant to Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan was a different country at that time.

Also, I never restored "sock edits" before you started to stalk me. I don't know what "raised concerns" before that.

Plus the rahmatullah Nabi quote is very relevant because it comes after "India denies this claim", and he openly accepts the claim of Indian-NDS intelligence cooperation. Content on Pakistani allegations between the relation was always there. I just expanded on it.

This whole heading can be expanded. Many relevant exists regarding BLA militants etc training there under the alleged cooperation between NDS-RAW. If you think this isn't history, then maybe just make a separate subsection. Uzek (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The only dispute I have had with you is here (a page edited and followed by me since before), the rest were sock edits, hardly WP:STALKING. The concerns raised were with stock restorals, was not addressing the unfounded stalking allegations.


 * Coming to the content, Ghaffar is himself buried in Jalalabad, that he is not relevant to Afghanistan and India especially when the content says that he still had Indian links post-independence is falling under the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.


 * That Nabil Tribune source is still an opinion writeup, i.e., not WP:RS and which does not provide what was said with WP:CONTEXT ("We helped India against Pakistan" does not by itself mean support for terrorism). Bring the original source/interview, opinion pieces are not going to fly.


 * Bring those sources for expansion if you have to here on Talk, but WP:UNDUE weight is a thing, and tomes of allegations pertaining to a perfunctory topic go against that. The streamlined para stood for years per the consensus above, I don't see anything significant to shift that consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I now do recall what initially lead me to your problematic edits here, it was while tagging for copyvio your multiple false attribution uploads on Commons. Gotitbro (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Ghaffar is very relevant to India post independence, but I'm not seeing how Afghanistan is? Just because he was buried there? Was he Afghanistan's spokesperson? NO. He was his own thing with his own independent views, limited to the politics of NWFP.


 * Also, the opinion piece quotes the nabil person though, apart from giving opinions regarding his statement. I don't see anything regarding this in WP:RSEDITORIAL. I'll add a news report detailing this then.


 * ANDDD "R&AW is working in cover inside Afghanistan to malign Pakistan" pay attention to this line, for which the follow up is relevant per WP:CONTEXT . It just needs to be rearranged. I think the 2012 (decade old) talk page section guy will probably agree with me regarding WP:WEIGHT .Since the content was very recently published in 2022.


 * Think the ISKP stuff just needs to be trimmed/summarized if other BLA militant content is also added. The only reason it is detailed is because of how lacking this section is.


 * Regarding why I mentioned the stalking incident, it was in response to this comment of yours: "a user restoring the edits of chronic sockpuppeteers here and there is obviously going to raise concerns, hardly anything POV about reverting socks". I was talking about the trails you left behind me on multiple other articles before today with your pov edits. Nothing to do with reverting socks, unless you just assumed I'm a sock? Lastly, on your latest comment, yes that too. But it's definitely vice versa for reasons known better to you. Uzek (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not deny vetting your edits after your false Commons uploads, hardly anything POV about that unless you consider that misattributing ownership and removal of material should not be followed upon by others. I am not going address this further, as this is not in dispute here and other forums exist for this.


 * RSEDITORIAL clearly states: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."


 * The author of the oped, Ozer Khalid, is neither notable nor a subject-matter expert, and he is further re-quoting someone else's statement (fact), i.e., rendering this opinion piece (which are already not considered RS) unusable. Will be waiting for the original interview source; and the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS bit was for the quote in its original aspect, assuming that the quote on its own is for the support of non-state actors is WP:SYNTH.


 * If the only basis for the addition of ISKP et al are allegations. I doubt we need anything beyond simply specifically naming them in-content. Though this too depends on the quality of sources brought here. The current opinion piece does not cut it. Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement that Ghaffar is not relevant to Afghanistan either feigns ignorance or belies it (a person who spent years in Afghanistan while still maintaining links with India not to mention his influence in the former). I am not going to repeat what I have already above, you will need to gain consensus for this removal. Gotitbro (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * About the first comment, I don't agree. But dragging this tiresome discussion isn't relevant to this dispute so I will leave it at that unless a relevant dispute arises.


 * WP:RSEDITORIAL doesn't mention anything about requoting, if it is allowed or not. It just comments on how opinions in opinion pieces need to be attributed. Regardless, I already added a news report source detailing this next to it. The quote is not synthesis at all, he explicitly states that as an ex NDS spy chief that it was involved in "helping India against Pakistan", very relevant to this article (and as a follow-up sentence to Pakistani allegations) regardless how you spin it to have it WP: CENSORED.


 * The Ghaffar para as it stands now is just unsourced commentary, no sources exist linking him as a spokesperson of Afghanistan along with links with India. Bring the sources connecting the three if it is to be kept but not as WP: SYNTHESIS. Uzek (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Ghaffar Khan himself details all three countries relations in his autobiography, but I have added third-party sources, nothing to synthesize here if someone is even barely familiar with his story.


 * I will take it that you have not been able to locate the original interview if this is the source you are talking about, which itself is sourced to a random Twitter account. Furthermore, in none of these quotes, as previously addressed, is there talk about support for non-state actors, you are WP:SYNTHesizing/confabulating that on your own. I am still waiting for the original source, it would appear you missed this part in RSEDITORIAL "reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact", he is quoting a third-party i.e. not his own statement; a statement of fact whose original source is still to be found. Gotitbro (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

RSEDITORIAL
The "helped India against Pakistan" was in a tweet, not any interview. An interview was published by The Hindu where none of this stuff is there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Which is the reason why I only cited the tribune source before, since express tribune and dawn.com are considered the most reliable well-established sources published from Pakistan on Wikipedia.


 * Also, further down the WP: RSEDITORIAL itself:

"If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."

This quote is inline attributed to him per WP:RS itself. It talks in general of attributing opinions to the author "of the text", not specifically the publishing author "of the article", it is not "A FACT". It is just the opinion of the author "of the text".


 * The other source is just "less reliable" but not enough to be discarded per this line:

"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." WP:NEWSORG.

No published news sources exist contradicting this news to be discarded as a source. He even responded to this tweet in the article and clarified that he meant "student visas", not his own visa. With no denial of the first part of this statement. . The Hindu (Indian state source) does report mostly on this, but doesn't quote his exact statement because of obvious reasons.


 * About the non state actor comment, I already addressed this. This statement is perfect as a follow-up for "R&AW is working in cover inside Afghanistan to malign Pakistan". It addresses cooperation between states only. The terrorism and training insurgents part should be modified and moved to the next sentence after the quote or be a separate paragraph until proper content relating to it can be included. Uzek (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please format your comments properly, they are a mess to sort through everytime. The content does not state he sought active support but that his movement was merely supported, further cited, removing Jabbar Khan for now. Still waiting for the original source, opeds and random tweets are simply not going to cut it, regardless of whether he chose to repond to any of them, you are free to press your case at WP:RSN but opeds and random tweets have hardly been accepted as sources in such cases. Just because no source is contradicting another one does not make them acceptable on wp, also the bit is definitely with regards to the author of the oped; that is pretty clear to anyone familiar with that guideline and has never been in dispute. The original source for the quote is still awaited.


 * please clarify whether in WP:RSEDITORIAL ("are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") is meant for the author of the oped or not. And if you can please provide an insight if the sources presented here are acceptable at all. Gotitbro (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, as per RSEDITORIAL, only attributed statements can be made regarding the claims (to Ozer Khalid, the author). But I don't see any attribution in the text. So I don't see why this source is used at all. The 24 News HD, apparently a TV channel that I had never heard of, doesn't look at all reliable to me. It is heavily laced with its own opinions and its own interpretation that the Afghan spy chief talked about "Indian involvement in Pakistan". The Afghan spy chief didn't talk about any such thing. Without corroboration from other RS, this is too far-fetched. (It is hardly surprising that the Indian diplomatic missions constantly under Pakistani terror threats rely on the intelligence wing of the home country for their safety and protection.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Kautilya3 I've already responded to this, read this subsection again, right after your first comment. Clearly a third person's opinion is required regarding this, who is not Indian/Pakistani. Uzek (talk)
 * Attributed to Nabil. But he is not under discussion. He didn't write an RSEDITORIAL in the Express Tribune. The reliabiity of Express Tribune is not relevant either, because the Express Tribune didn't write it. Some unnamed op-ed writer, whose views have been peddled jere as encyclopedic knowledge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not being presented as "encyclopedic knowledge", it is not "a fact", it is just an attribution to the author "of the text". The publishing source of which is well-established, and reliable. Posting this again from WP: RSEDITORIAL, already discussed in detail above:
 * "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." Uzek (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

MORE ON GHAFFAR

 * 1). I don't understand why you included this source? What do you see? https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/neighbours/story/19800331-everything-in-afghanistan-is-done-in-the-name-of-religion-khan-abdul-ghaffar-khan-806546-2014-01-31


 * It just mentions of him now being settled in Afghanistan in his old age and how the Pashtunistan issue is dead "and never helped pashtuns", how he's "grateful" for Daud Khan (Afghan leader) for dropping the issue. And stuff about his health


 * 2). Also: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constituent_assembly_members/khan_abdul_ghaffar_khan


 * This also talks of his exile in Afghanistan due to repeated imprisonment in Pakistan. And his political role in the Indian independence movement (for which the award was for). These sources don't claim India or Afghanistan was helping him in creating Pashtunistan. That was his own independent idea, which he dropped once the Afghanistan govt started to actively achieve that dream. He wasn't the type to seek support from rival states for his ideas, and stuck to peaceful political struggle. Plus the other person isn't even mentioned. Uzek (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please format your comments properly, they are a mess to sort through everytime. The content does not state he sought active support but that his movement was merely supported, further cited, removing Jabbar Khan for now. Still waiting for the original source, opeds and random tweets are simply not going to cut it, regardless of whether he chose to repond to any of them, you are free to press your case at WP:RSN but opeds and random tweets have hardly been accepted as sources in such cases. Just because no source is contradicting another one does not make them acceptable on wp, also the bit is definitely with regards to the author of the oped; that is pretty clear to anyone familiar with that guideline and has never been in dispute. The original source for the quote is still awaited.


 * please clarify whether in WP:RSEDITORIAL ("are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.") is meant for the author of the oped or not. And if you can please provide an insight if the sources presented here are acceptable at all. Gotitbro (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to edit your own comments and start new sections but distorting prior comments (breaking them up, changing their position) by other users and discussion sections is not done; please see Talk page guidelines further. By formatting I meant proper indentation and punctuation not the overhaul of the discussion. Some of your comments might have been reverted by me in undoing your overhaul, please feel free to re-add them. Gotitbro (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Gotitbro The Elisabeth Leake quote you linked should be inline attributed though, not written in Wikipedia's voice if it's to be included. According to her, Indian support was for Pashtun tribal militias that took "inspiration from Ghaffar Khan", who also happened to be supported by the Afghan govt. Plus the other sources just don't make sense along with the currently standing large chunks of unsourced commentary. Uzek (talk)
 * Okay this is what is meant by indentation (:::, per the required number), please place them before your comments. We don't need to unnecessarily inline attribute well-established facts or scholars. It is directly his movement that was supported (that of Pashtunishtan in both Afghanistan and was back then objected to directly by Pakistan); you are free to read the whole chapter that quote was just for a gist of it, I have also added another citation (again the quote is only a gist). Sources for him, Afghanistan and India are not hard to find, I am not sure if this needs further debate and do not think a consensus for its removal is going to develop. Gotitbro (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Well-established facts" by whom? There's no such thing as well-established facts on Wikipedia per WP:OR, everything requires a source. And to ensure neutrality of the opinionated content WP:INTEXT too is required, never to be written in Wikipedia's voice. For someone who seems so well-read on Wikipedia policies, you probably are aware of this.
 * Also, Pashtunistan tribal militias were supported by India/Afghanistan later on after Pakistan was created. Ghaffar doesn't belong here (as unsourced commentary), since clearly he didn't want anything to do with those militias spreading anarchy per your own sources.
 * He just campaigned to have an autonomous status as an option on the NWFP referendum along with the joining Pakistan/India option, and pledged his allegiance to Pakistan once it was created. Uzek (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The facts are well-established to anyone familiar with Khan, WP:WIKIVOICE is allowed but if you are adamant add the author in-text but its unnecessary. The movement lost support later, after Soviet incursions, but was there in the preceding period that is a miscontruing of sources, we need not be pedantic here. I am not going to further the debate on this particular topic and will wait for a third opinion but don't see a consensus building for removal, the sources are there for anyone's perusal including on his interim exilation (Leake; Akbar). Gotitbro (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As a closure for my arguments above, I will simply include Oxford's primer on India-Afghanistan relations which also prominently mentions Khan: Gotitbro (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can settle the issue of not mentioning Khan at all in India-Afghanistan relations as scholarly literature thinks otherwise, if anyone thinks the content needs modification feel free to do so; but abosulte removal would require further consensus (WT:IND, WT:PAK, WP:AFN). Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll modify later unless someone else decides to Uzek (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Gotitbro "I think we can settle the issue of not mentioning Khan at all in India-Afghanistan relations as scholarly literature thinks otherwise"???? Uzek (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What was meant was that he has to be mentioned in form or another, the rest of the content can be edited around that as scholarly clearly mentions him as well in its overview of relations between the two countries. Gotitbro (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I just quote the Elizabeth Leake source after the para which I edited into the article yesterday, (since his mention appears in opinionated texts)? What do you want? Uzek (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can work with that, but his name needs in-text mention. Gotitbro (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)