Talk:Forward policy

Forward policy
This article is about "FORWARD POLICIES" in general. Not specifically to just one forward policy. Forward policy of India shouldn't be censored by edit wars.

@Kautilya3 ~ You completely deleted my input. I'm not interested in a petty edit war but you asked me to provide sources in "The forward policy" that Indian government engaged in.

Forward policy is a famous policy made by Nehru. It is one of the notable "forward policies" in modern history and deserves to be included as a case example in this article.

You want sources. Here they are ~

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/392828/forward-policy-nehru-govt-blamed.html

"The "Forward Policy" of the government under late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the then army leadership has been blamed for India's humiliating defeat in 1962 war against China in a top secret report accessed an Australian journalist" aka The Henderson Brooks report.

Chinese never accepted the McMahon Line. The Chinese know exactly where it lies; they simply don't recognize it as legitimate since they never signed the Simla Accord. So this isn't a case of reneging on a prior commitment / agreement; there was no agreement on the part of the Chinese.

And that's not all: the Simla Accord claimed that Tibet was under Chinese suzerainty. Suzerainty means control over domestic affairs but delegating control over foreign affairs to the suzerain. To me, it seems that the Simla Accord was never a valid agreement because the party that agreed to it, Tibet, did not have the legal capacity to agree to it under the terms of the agreement itself!

So to be clear, the Indian Army had set up outposts NORTH above the McMahon Line in what was Chinese territory: IF you go to wikipedia and lookup nehru and his forward policy.

"In June, local Indian commanders had estab- lished Dhola Post, in Tawang. The relevant issue was that Dhola Post was one mile north of the McMahon Line, in Chinese territory even by Indian standards."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

All of this was after the Chinese had built a road across Aksai Chin. So there are plenty of sources and established reasoning behind my words

Undelete my input and add in the source. Don't just remove completely and fyi, i was not the one who originally added india into the article. So you deleted other people's work too.


 * also bear in mind everything is recorded and logged and you can't delete history ~ i'm not going to fight you over it as i don't really care about your beef with China. Not my problem but I am am aussie who read alot of chinese history, fascinated about it and know my stuff. And i didn't do anything wrong.

I also noticed that you have been flagged for petty edit warring in the past. 120.18.180.210 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?? Deliberately changing the introduction to make it seem like forward policies can only ever exist in the context of Great game and no where else. Reveals that you actually know exactly what you are doing and trying anything to help censor out the forward policy used in the Sino-Indian war leadup. This page needs to be protected from Indian nationalists. 😡 I will report yall as soon as i figure out how to do that. 120.17.233.32 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence
I corrected the lead sentence of the article based on the cited source here. My version is below:

From the quotation displayed, it can be seen that the source is only talking about forward policy of the British Empire in the context of the Great Game. It is talking about control over neighbouring areas, beyond the country's borders, that lie along a potential Russian advance.

But it seems that the edit was reverted back to the old version:

The problems are: Consequently this version of the lead sentence fails verification. It is not an accurate description of the content in the source. Unless new sources are brought forward to verify the content, the lead sentence will need to be changed back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is not describing anything general called "forward policy" that is universally applicable across the whole world.
 * It is not talking about any "territorial and border disputes".
 * Neither is the term "disputed areas" found anywhere.


 * Not this again.. . Are you a historian? Do you only read Great Game history? Have you ever read European military history? Or are you pretending to not know?
 * Your mistake is by making presumptions without awareness. I mean you are literally only looking at only one source and paragraph talking about a SINGLE particular historic forward policy involving India, and then you think you get all your information about all the forward policies in the world from that. That is narrow restricted logic.
 * Must I actually remind you that this article is about ALL forward policies in general. First it's a stance philosophy and that paragraph describes what that philosophy is. We rarely use it nowadays because it would be considered fascist and illegal by current international laws plus atmosphere but it was rather common in the 1800s.
 * Second of all, it's not a British exclusive policy.. The great games and leadup to Sino-Indian wars were arguably the most fascinating ones. The ones that really put the philosophy into overdrive. But they were definitely not the first nor only known "forward policy" in history. The very same philosophy is practised in many different European languages and there is no Proof that Britian first invented it all. Let alone by "amateurs".
 * Britain and Russia can only be minimally credited for having imported that philosophy to India afterwards. That's all..🤨 They advocated in using them but it would a big leap to also claim they were the first to ever invent it. Throughout Europe you have Germany, Austria, France, Russia, etc. They have all had forward policies in history. The forward policy is largely attributed to all of Europe. Most historic forward policies were between rivalling European countries like Austria, Germany, France, Russia. They developed schools of military political tactics that became widespread terminology.
 * Fyi, it actually can be "applied" to winning control over disputed territory and that is what it was often used for. But it doesn't necessarily have to be for disputed territories. So that intro is not incorrectly written. Albeit lacking certain holistic explicitness. And don't get all your information about forward policies in general, narrowly from a specific single forward policy in Indian region.
 * There are more historical forward policies in Europe before they eventually became introduced to India. Outside of India, forward policies were not at all uncommon in Europe. It did not originate in INDIA and you also Just can't just take a paragraph talking only about one specific foriegn forward policy and think automatically that is the only one to ever exist in history. I don't know where to even start with that.
 * Forward policy is fairly holistic and varies for each conflict. But it was usually more about one state politically trying to get the upper hand by ie, creating "buffer states" via reforms of their neighboring state and be a dominant element over them. Austria did that to Germany. Or school of arguments and predictive theories to advance posts into other's territory to put the rival state into an unfamiliar novel position and militarily attack from there. There was the infamous and long French forward policy after napolean was defeated by a coalition of European powers and it involved the greek independence war. The list of documented Forward Policies, outside of India, just goes on and on in Europe.
 * There is also no Proof and credit that neither Britain nor Russia first invented the school of forward policies philosophy as during the Great Games, France Forward Policy and Austrian forward policy was at around the same time and even earlier, but in Europe.
 * https://academic.oup.com/fh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/fh/crz002/5365733
 * https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CjddDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=1800+forward+policy&source=bl&ots=DwhwCDPfuG&sig=ACfU3U3idmjN_d9Ax79SrnP6GLHmLC_1oQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl4Y2p-OjgAhWKSH0KHU0KCX4Q6AEwAXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=1800%20forward%20policy&f=false
 * -- 120.17.233.32 (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, I am not sure that I really need all these lectures. You have reinstated the problematic lead sentence. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide a source that verifies the sentence. Please do that now. Otherwise, it will get reverted. You also haven't provided a reliable source that discusses the Nehruvian "forward policy" as an instance of some general doctrine that you claim exists. has asked you to do that before you start expanding the article with that content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I initially already gave you the short explanation before, that the article was not about a SINGLE forward policy but about all forward policy overall, and that didn't work out numerous times already. Then you changed the intro so afterwards I try to explain fully why that is not right. I'm sorry if I'm being overly aggressive but you likely need access to a University library to SPECIFICALLY cite definition of doctrine categories and not narrowly from a particular book focusing only on great games. However if you read enough history books, they don't give you The definition of each term because they're designed to tell history. Not be a dictionary. Regardless you can't change it as if it's the only forward policy in history when it's clearly not. -- 120.17.233.32 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - You need to provide reliable sources. WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy and the onus is on you to provide the sources that verify any content you add. The sources need to be reliable (see WP:RS). And, the sources must specifically make any connections that you are adding to the article. If you make those connections, that is considered to be original research, something that is best left to academic peer reviewed journals. (I'm not saying you're wrong and I apologize for all the policy pages I'm throwing at you, but these are things you should know before you add material here.)--regentspark (comment) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm looking at your edit summaries and some of the tone of your comments above. Please note that you should confine your comments to the content that you're adding and not speculate about the motives of other editors. Comments such as this one are unacceptable. --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sino-Indian conflict
, thanks for cleaning up the India section. But I believe that this section has been wrongly inserted into this page. There is nothing in common between what has been termed "Forward policy" in the Indian context and the traditional context. Moreover, China's own forward policy also needs to be discussed as well:

So, I propose that this section should be spun out as a new page Forward policy (Sino-Indian conflict). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just about to send you the same message! And yes, it would be interesting to know China's own forward policy! DTM (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, the content is now spun out at Forward policy (Sino-Indian conflict). For any one interested in the issue, the rationale for the split is that the "Forward policy" of India in the context of Sino-Indian border dispute is that India was deploying army within its own borders (however conceived), whereas the "Forward policy" of this page is always deployed beyond one's borders. No WP:RS has been cited that establishes any relation between the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)