Talk:Alastair Lamb

Pro-India?
the full paragraph of which you have cherry-picked a quote says:

Only somebody wildly out of their mind would think that "leaving it to the reader to form his own judgement" makes one "pro-India"!

It is clear that Mehra was writing a history book whereas the reviewer, who is by no means a specialist in the area, is interested in its significance https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Go-up.svgto the present day border dispute between China and India. Probably Mehra is deliberately staying away from that because he does not want to get enmeshed in these disputes and devalue his own work in the process?

I note also that this is a page on Alastair Lamb, not on Parshotam Mehra. You are WP:COATRACKing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The catchphrase here is "In view of the remarks made earlier." These are the earlier remarks:
 * It all boils down to one thing in the end of the review. That Mehra is pro-India. It is important, not coatracking, because it is imperative that we identify biased sources. If the issue is about specialisation then we should remove Mehra's review of Alastair Lamb's first book altogether. Alive4islam (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If history is on India's side (assuming that to be the case), you can't fault the historian for it. If the history is accurate, that is all there to it. The reviewer hasn't pointed out any such inaccuracies. So this review doesn't warrant any such branding as "Pro-India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for comments at WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have asked for comments at WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kumar on Mehra

 * Mahendra Kumar writes about Mehra:-


 * How on earth, can anyone say Mehra to be Pro-India in a so-definite tone from the above piece in light of the extensive praises showered on him across the first, second and parts of last paragraph?
 * The criticism is actually a bit mixed. The reviewer did not like Mehra's writing of a blunt historical narrative; (despite the claims of the author that they were precisely doing that) and wished Mehra had not stayed away from commenting on the disputes that derived thereof. Kumar believes that since Mehra's work doesn't lead to new developments in the part. area; his claims of writing a new book may not be so true. This was his main bone of criticism and it was academically sane, atleast.
 * Kumar then decides to sprinkle two phrases:- which tend to support India’s official position on the McMahon Line and vulnerability to pushing pro-India-POV which is in weird territory. Why the heck shall Mehra need to actively work to not only comment on the political developments in a self-declared historical narrative but also reverse-walk from the mainstream view which equates with the Indian official position on the issue, (as Kumar agrees!)? If anyone reading a historical narrative (which Kumar has praised so extensively!) comes to the conclusion that the Indian viewpoint was correct, what's Kumar's issues/concerns?
 * If anything; the review seeds some doubt on Kumar's inherent biases et al.
 * Also, that the reviewer has been very cautious to not accuse him of pro-India-POV in any direct manner, I find 's cherry picking attempts based on 2 phrases to be mildly amusing. Insertion of Pro-India scholar is wildly inappropriate in light of no other evidence. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, WBG. Since there has been no response in 24 hours, I am removing the "pro-India" label attached to Parshotham Mehra. I am also removing the "tendentious" label, supposedly provided by Neville Maxwell, a journalist with no credentials for history. If the other editors come by, I don't mind discussing it further. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I will retain Leo Rose, however, as he is a well-respected scholar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Missing cites
Kautilya3, you have not provided the corresponding citation for Mehra's review of Kashmir: A disputed legacy, 1846–1990 and instead mistakenly inserted the cite for his review of The McMahon Line. It's amusing that the bunch of SPAs failed for so long to latch on the error. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#x222F; WBG converse 13:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The correct citation is this one:
 * Somehow the year got recorded as 2016, probably the date of the online publication. I will double check all the citations to make sure they are right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Somehow the year got recorded as 2016, probably the date of the online publication. I will double check all the citations to make sure they are right. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed section
I have no clue what's the bibliography-section stood for and why the have been sfn-ed without any pointing cite in the text. Please clarify what exactly you seek; prior to a botched re-insertion that's giving a bunch of errors. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pro-India Srinath Raghavan
, while I have your attention, can I ask you to look at this fragment as well?

Perry Anderson is of course a well-known critic, and his The Indian Ideology has generated considerable debate. But, the book brands even Gandhi and Nehru as ideologues, and presumably no Indian would escape the label from Anderson. But can this be taken to be a scholarly consensus about all these individuals and used for willy-nilly branding? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Will comment tomorrow. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
Why not just remove Mehra, Raghavan and Jha? They add no value to the article except nationalist bickering. I don't see anything scholarly in their reviews. Mehra's reference to Ayesha Jalal as if she is a benchmark for anything is indicative of shabby scholarship. I would say do away with all 3 of them. Hugh Tinker already covers that Indian authors are upset by Alastair Lamb (his book is banned in "democratic" India). After Tinker's review there's no need to list each and every one of those authors and their distressed statements. All three are known for nationalist biases and their criticisms are both content and value free. Reception should cover scholarly reviews not intra-scholarly nationalist mudslinging. FreeKashmiri (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read WP:NPOV, ? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A Disputed Legacy - originally self published

 * 1) Roxford Books (http://roxfordbooks.com/) is a self-published source belonging to Alastair Lamb and Venice Lamb. (WP:QUESTIONABLE)
 * 2) Other versions of A Disputed Legacy, though of the "reputed" Oxford University Press (OUP), are Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad OUP or Pakistan OUP. The OUP Pakistan page is live and verifies this.
 * 3) The book is banned in India (HT). (It is to note that "some time (in the 1990s India's) Home Ministry issued a blanket order to Customs that any book written by a foreigner on Kashmir should automatically be held back."(outlook))

Combining only these three points, I think the reliability of the book, and accordingly the reliability of the author, needs further elaboration in the review section. (I understand that the book isn't attempting neutrality (WP:BIASEDSOURCES), but Wikipedia is required to be neutral (WP:NEUTRALSOURCE). Currently the article seems to take sides rather than explain both sides fairly which goes against - Neutral point of view.) Also, using the book as a reference in other Wikipedia articles needs to be reviewed, and accordingly other work of Lamb also. This is the case with many authors on Kashmir, no matter which side they are on. I was reminded of the sheer scale of this trying to expand the draft Draft:List of books about Kashmir, and have given up for now. Maybe an "Unbalanced section" tag can be placed on the section for the book. DTM (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As typically required by WP:NPOV (particularly WP:BALANCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), use WP:INTEXT attribution for statements of opinion or when presenting a position where there are competing viewpoints of due weight.Also, it doesn’t matter if the book is available on the Pakistani OUP website. A book either has or has not been published by the Oxford University Press. That particular book has also been academically reviewed in dozens of academic journals, so one edition being self-published isn’t a factor in reliability; just use the academic reviews. — MarkH21talk 12:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, well! Thank you for unearthing this extremely useful piece of information. It never crossed my mind to check the background of Roxford Books. The company being owned by the Lamb family definitely means that the books are WP:SPS. We will have to take the sourcing of his material on all kinds of pages to WP:RSN at some point. To my own mind, the books cannot be entirely dismissed. They are valuable and there are plenty of reviews that vouch for the fact that they represent "scholarly" material.
 * However, "scholarly" simply means that Lamb has studied the primary sources (mainly British colonial records available in London, but not in Delhi or Calcutta) and summarised them. That is a scholarly contribution. Whether his treatment is neutral, unbiased and "disinterested" (as scholarly works are expected to be) is not at all established. Plenty of reviewers have pointed out problems in this regard.
 * I also need to re-read all the reviews to understand what they have actually said. Many of the reviewers wrote boiler plate reviews that summarised the books and assessed that they were valuable. Only a few were expert reviews written by reviewers that have expertise in the field themselves. We need to weight the reviews appropriately. It is scandalous that even anonymous reviewers who only identified themselves by their initials have been portrayed on this page as worthy sources. Far from it.
 * I would like to see if would be able to help us disentangle the mess that this page has become. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding SPS, if the book was published by the Oxford University Press in addition to Roxford Books, then the book wasn't self-published. — MarkH21talk 14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Academic works are expected to be peer-reviewed, by experts. Self-published books may not have been reviewed at all. Scholarly reviews in journals ameliorates this to some extent. But they still can't substitute for peer reviews, which are expected to be quite thorough. It is not unusual for a book of 400-500 pages to take about a year to get through the peer reviews, all of which contributes to the quality of the book.
 * As for republication by OUP Pakistan, we have to check what their editorial policy is. Republication just means that the second publisher judged it to be worthy enough to be republished, for which they could have gotten some local reviews. The books are only meant for sale in Pakistan. So it doesn't certify the quality of the books at a global level. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxford University Press Pakistan is a branch of the Oxford University Press (cf. OUP's About page and OUP Pakistan's About Us page). It's not a separate publisher.Re-publication doesn't mean that there were lower publication standards than a first publication. None of the major academic publishers do that. — MarkH21talk 15:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to the ping. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject to provide an informed opinion. I recommend escalating this to the reliable sources noticeboard with notices on the relevant WikiProjects. —  Newslinger  talk   03:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will go-ahead and try to add this to the reliable sources noticeboard DTM (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, MarkH, I have written a draft for this over in my sandbox. Please have a look and see if any changes are needed before I add it to RSN. Thanks. DTM (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks largely okay to me, although point 2 (Other versions of A Disputed Legacy, though of the "reputed" Oxford University Press (OUP), are reprints in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad OUP or Pakistan OUP) omits the Australia/New Zealand OUP branch despite it being mentioned at the top.Given that it was also republished by OUP Australia/NZ branch, and that OUP branches aren’t separate publishers from the OUP, I don’t think there’s really a need for an RSN thread on the question of being self-published. You can still go ahead with it though. — MarkH21talk 03:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. However, this is going nowhere. DTM (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Alastair Lamb is pro-Pakistani
If Alastair Lamb is pro-Pakistani, it should accordingly be mentioned in the lead. You can argue that this would be inappropriate; so lets tone it down; we can say he is pro-Pakistani in relation to his academic approach to Kashmir; toning it down more; Alaistar Lamb is considered pro-pakistani by Indian sources. Since the article says a lot about Kashmir and his work on Kashmir, it is only apt that this is mentioned in the lead. (MOS:LEAD) I do understand that other sources use better terms for him, but that only supports the pro-pakistani point. Pakistani sourcing praising him makes sense. DTM (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ...pro-Pakistan historian Alastair Lamb ... (India Today)
 * ...notoriously pro-Pakistan Alastair Lamb... (DailyO)
 * ...Alastair Lamb's Kashmir, A Disputed Legacy was an exercise in legal quibbling... (Outlook)
 * Authors such as Parshotam Mehra in the article also point to this.
 * ...Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb... (Pakistan today
 * ...Historian Alastair Lamb... (The Nation Pakistan)
 * ...diplomatic historian Alastair Lamb... (Indian Express 2020) (Note same as wiki intro)
 * ...A credible author who has published about Kashmir dispute is Alastair Lamb...(eurasia review)
 * Isn’t that only Mehta, one Indian magazine article, and one opinion article that described Lamb as "pro-Pakistan"? Such a statement would need more RSes describing him as such for it to be WP:DUE. — MarkH21talk 11:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of Alastair Lamb?
Please direct me to the correct google search for this? I'm lost. How can finding the pictures of such a reputed author be so difficult. (Probably I am making some mistake somewhere in the search) Thanks in advance. DTM (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:HOAX even crossed my mind. DTM (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Several of the descriptions and reviews of his work are from published academic papers in reputed academic journals like Pacific Affairs, The English Historical Review, and International Affairs. I don’t know if there are publicly available good photos of him, but that doesn’t mean that he is a hoax?The only image that I could find is in this article. — MarkH21talk 11:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the photograph. DTM (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Countering some of Lamb's China-India claims
There is a large paragraph in the "Research" section -  "When the China–India border dispute was getting critical in 1962, Lamb was conducting research in........" There are some heavy lines put forward as a statements such as "The more he checked the published Indian documents, the more convinced he became of distortions and misquotations." It is to be noted that this has been taken from a primary source WP:PRIMARY. Also the paragraph is lengthy and therefor DUE / UNDUE comes into pictirtes. Keeping these two points in mind PRIMARY & DUE / UNDUE I have added a counter argument for this, or rather some balancing lines. (Nitin A. Gokhale's quote is important because it counters both Maxwell and Lamb at the same time; the review of Maxwell's work is by Lamb as mentioned and linked above.) DTM (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Gokhale quote sounds like something for the "Reception" section, while it should be made more clear that that paragraph in "Research" is his own account of events. — MarkH21talk 11:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wrote that paragraph and I think it is critical to understanding how Lamb's anti-India prejudices built up from early on. I can use some more quotation marks if the text makes you uncomfortable and I can look for some other counter-evidence for how he could have been mistaken.
 * I am a bit confused about the timelines now. The "misquotation" that he complains most about is a letter of Nehru dated 26 September 1959. This was published in White Paper II on 4 November 1959. But our write-up says he went to British Malaya in 1959. So something isn't fitting here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Lamb is also wrong to assume that no action was taken based on his complaints. Nehru sent Sarvepalli Gopal to London to check the India Office Records right around this time, and Gopal reported back to Nehru in February 1960. The problem is that Lamb thinks everything that was available in London is the sacred truth, without ever looking at the records in Delhi and Calcutta. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have checked the source now and it turns out that the meeting with the Indian High Commission official was in the first half of 1962. He must have been on leave to do some research in the India Office Library in London. His suggestion to the official was that the 1899 Macartney–MacDonald Line would be a suitable compromise for resolving the Aksai Chin dispute. His understanding of the 1899 line is said to be:
 * This particular understanding of the 1899 line is not shared by any other scholar I know. The condition, relinquishing 'shadowy suzerainty' over Hunza, is quite directly relevant to the issue in question. Parshotam Mehra states that it was a straightforward barter deal. If China gave up suzerainty over Hunza, the British would cede half of Aksai Chin to China. Fisher et al. say the same. Van Eekelen also recognises the connection between the two. If the Chinese already possessed a claim to Aksai Chin, such barter wouldn't have made sense.
 * The idea that the 1899 line was a suitable compromise is quite obvious. But nobody has said that China would be even remotely interested in it. In fact, in 1962, China was pushing forward well beyond the 1899 line (even though the 1956 claim line was somewhat close to it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The idea that the 1899 line was a suitable compromise is quite obvious. But nobody has said that China would be even remotely interested in it. In fact, in 1962, China was pushing forward well beyond the 1899 line (even though the 1956 claim line was somewhat close to it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Another contradiction

 * Seemingly, another contradiction with reference to the 1959 letter; Lamb writes:
 * The White Paper below clearly says that the Indians were talking to the Chinese at the highest levels even in 1959. Nehru's letter is looong too.
 * ON the contrary to Lamb the white paper also says - "It is to be observed that at no time up till now has any precise statement been made by the Chinese Government as to where according to them, their frontier is." (The historical division of MEA is very active!!!)
 * As for Malaya, yes it says -
 * Coming to the point, which "misquotation" is being talked about here? DTM (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Malaya, yes it says -
 * Coming to the point, which "misquotation" is being talked about here? DTM (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Coming to the point, which "misquotation" is being talked about here? DTM (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

On the first point, the allegation that the Indians were not talking is certainly false. Rather, it was the Chinese that were unwilling to talk. Premier Zhou kept dodging saying that they had just gone into Tibet and they were still studying the issues. Discussions happened only after the Kongka Pass incident.

We can't just go by the Indian communications. Diplomatic communques are loaded with subtle messaging. But the letter you quote is from 4 November 1959. In response, Zhou En-lai wrote back saying that a certain 1956 map of China showed the correct boundary. (According to some Indian commentators it was the same as the 1947 KMT claim line.) It is not marked on the map here, but it is quite similar to the blue line.

But when the border negotiations opened in 1960, the Chinese officials produced a new claim line. The war happened to establish this new claim line. This is marked in red. So, if Lamb was trying to push the 1899 line in the first half of 1962, he was behind the curve.

As for the misquotations, I am still investigating. But the 1899 letter, which I mentioned above, is said to have been misquoted by Nehru. There were allegedly several other such "distortions and misquotations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A new article for the book Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy
The problem with writing and anaslysing the book on Lamb's Wikipedia article is: Accordingly, I think it would be easier to create a separate article for the book, and a summary on Lamb's BLP. DTM (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The book has to be written according to a BLP page and not a book page
 * 2) Length has to be considered

Alastair Lamb still alive?
Does anyone know if Alastair Lamb is still alive? I tried to get in touch with him in 2015 through the University of Hertfordshire History Department and Dr. Beverley Southgate but was unsuccessful... Kamtal75 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that he is no longer!
 * https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2023/04/06/alastair-lamb-obituary-india-pakistan-kashmir-history/ 2601:281:8200:6580:A9D9:A084:47BB:FD75 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)