Talk:India–Pakistan relations/Archive 1

Why no mention of Bengali under linguistic ties??
Why is there no mention of the Bengali language (Bangla) under linguistic ties - as this was one of the major languages shared between India and (East) Pakistan until the independence of Bangladesh and there are still many Bengali people/speakers in Pakistan today??

Untitled
kindly update citation number 4 of newyork times. The page gives a 404. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadhassan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this the place to include:

"HAVANA, Sept 16 (Reuters) - India and Pakistan will resume formal peace negotiations frozen after the July train bombings in Mumbai and set up a joint agency to tackle terrorism, their leaders said on Saturday.chotia

"It was agreed that the peace process must be maintained. We instructed our foreign secretaries to resume the comprehensive dialogue as early as possible," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, reading out a joint statement after talks with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf." http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N16141942.htm ? -- Beardo 20:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be a section on People-to-people contact. There had been collaboration between India & Pakistan in movies, trade and communications (like Lahore-Delhi Bus Service, Samjhota Express). Also, there is a number of organizations working for friendship & peace between the two countries.

Guys - I am sorry to say this, but, horrible piece of editing. One can tell if a sentence, or paragraph, or section has been written by a biased Indian or a biased Pakistani. Deal with facts, do not say things that are judgmental, even if they seem true. I have taken it upon myself to re write this page. Even if I have to spend nights and make sure that in the end everyone agrees with it that it is true.

If we, educated people, writing an encyclopaedia, can not be honest and truthful and objective then unfortunately, there is no future for either of our states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalahazrat (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the Article has serious Errors!
Deeply dissapointed the way facts have been presented here, and elsewhere in the wikipedia relating to the topic of Kashmir. Am not saying it is biased peice of work, but am saying it completly ignores some important facts.

If someone has access to this book already mentioned in the wikipedia: Freedom at Midnight, the book is by an Englishmen, and hence has an element of neutrality. The section pertaining to Kashmir needs to be rewritten, and copied elsewhere where required.

Please someone look into the issue! Else I will surely take time out to rewrite the mentioned section.Msolution (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article still protected?
I think it is time that the article is unprotected. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC) The information given in the article is distorting,farce,ridiculous and a grave satire,mocking at the lives of so millions of Kashmiris who are living this "NIGHTMARE". It is equally unfortunate to be seeing authentic sources like Wikipedia, encouraging and    circulating this kind of information. It hurts when encountering such farce, when i being a Kashmiri know the reality and have actually lived it. It is very necessary to entertain only reliable information, the opposite of which can question the authenticity of such a remarkable site. Even though the article on Kashmir is full of errors, the main among them is that there has been an enquiry into the Wandhama, Chhitisinghpora, Sangrampora,incidents which proved that it was the Indian armed forces that was responsible for the massacres and Kashmiri civilians portrayed as foreign militants had been framed and likewise killed. Their bodies were exhumed and hence proved the fact. Second important error is that the strength of the Indian Security Forces in Kashmir is 700,000 and not 250,000 and u can check it from any reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaistakuttay786 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir was ruled by Hindu Dogra Maharaj Hari Sing. He was not Sikh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqwz (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange
Te article is titled Indi-Pakstani, India comes before Pakistan in the alphabetical list, yet the article talks of Pakistan before India? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Map
Regarding this edit, this incorrect - I also created the Australia–India relations article, if you look at that article you will see the infobox has India before Australia, this is so that this map is used. As English is written left to right people look at maps in a West to East direction, also the text is will be displayed that way. Pahari Sahib 23:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * pakisthan is lost in amazon forest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.233.83 (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right if you look here you can just see Karachi. Pahari Sahib   13:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a sense of humour :) Mar4d (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

no references
if non refer given the text will be deleted or challenged bengal refugee crsis pakistan granted most favoured status —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Goyalamit, 10 August 2010
This page has superflous or incorrect statements that point to clear Pakistani bias. For instance in the 1971 section, East Pakistan is expressed as being occupied by Bengalis.because of congress of india. In the overview, the statements around potential for better relations has only 1 line about Pakistan freeing a spy which is superflous and arbitrary when compared to substantial attempts for peace like Lahore bus trip or Agra summit.

Goyalamit (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.

There's a lot of bias in this article. It's extremely misleading and provides distorted facts throughout. Can someone edit, preferably someone NOT from India or Pakistan, so that it remains unbiased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.155.203 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Added India's 50 Most Wanted Fugitives in Pakistan to See also Section.
I have added the link to India's 50 Most Wanted Fugitives in Pakistan which is one of the new agenda between India and Pakistan. Pakistan's Viewpoint has to be added to it along with Indian responses in the future..--Tall.kanna (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.94.112.140, 24 May 2011
hello sir i am a student and preparing forCAT 2011..I HAVE TO PRESENT a speech on indo pak relation so pls kindly help me to gain some inforamation so that i could perform well thank uu

59.94.112.140 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not an appropriate request I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Highly politicised
I feel most of this article is highly politicised. To add the lighter side, I'm going to make some new sections and introduce missing links about cultural, geographic and transport relations as well. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.165.220.221, 20 June 2011
In the India and pakistan comparison table there is a big mistake in the religion percentage. In indain its wrongely written as 54 % Muslimes. In fact in Indian there is only 11 -12 % only and hindus is atoung 79 %. Its a big mistake. kindly check and correct it

217.165.220.221 (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Fixed and sourced. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

this article lacks reference to damns Islamabad: Dozens of Pakistani villages have been submerged after India released the water from the Sutlej river, a media report said Sunday.

The Federal Flood Commission said 57,000 cusecs of water flowed through Kasur district, submerging several villages.

The water level rose to 18.5 feet at Kakar post after the flood water gushed through it, the Nation reported.

The flood waters marooned several villages, including Gandasinghwala, Mahiwala and Pattan and severed their links to the outside world.

Relief workers were shifting the trapped people to safer places.

http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/story.php?id=113173 , or indian oppostion to EU-trade deal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez78 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC) also pakistan and india(rajiv gandi) reached an agreement on siachin, but rajiv gandi later back tracked..causing pakistan to mistrust india also indian-russian-iranian support of northern alliance

Somalia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy3s06lVNC8 pakistan navy ship rescues indians from somalia pirates, helped improve indo pak realations but then indaian navy shipped rammed that pakistan navy ship causing negative relationas

ISLAMABAD, Jun 17 (APP): The Foreign Office lodged a protest with the Indian government through the Indian High Commission in Islamabad on a serious incident on 16 June, 2011 in which Indian Navy Ship Godavari obstructed Pakistan Navy Ship Babur. In a statement, a Foreign Office Spokesperson said the Indian navy ship not only hampered humanitarian operations being carried out by Pakistan Navy Ship Babur for Merchant Vessel Suez but also undertook dangerous maneuvers, which resulted in the brushing of the sides of INS Godavari and PNS Babur. PNS Babur was escorting and assisting MV Suez which had been released after captivity by Somali pirates. This incident constitutes a serious violation of international regulations pertaining to safe conduct at high seas and of the India-Pakistan Agreement of 1991 on Advance Notice of military exercise maneuvers and troops movements.The Indian government has been asked to ensure non-recurrence of such incidents.

http://app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=142550&Itemid=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez78 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article is not stating neutral point of view specially some recent edits User:Rao Ravindra have made this article heavily non-neutral. I don't understand how deletion of some content on pretext of being unsourced, biased and adding unsourced content in its place and that too heavily biased is called neutrality. And referring to a source (this site is already added as a source by User:Rao Ravindra) only when it supports your point of view and not when it supports neutral pov (that you call non neutral). In current form this article is biased and needs some sections to be rewritten. -- S M S  Talk 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

=
==================

Facts have been stated. If some facts are not liked by a particular editor, this does not make the article "non-neutral". For example, the fact "there is abject poverty in many Indian villages" may not be liked by some (rather, many) Indians though the fact is a reality. Stating this fact in an article on India would not make the article "non-neutral". Rather, removing this sentence from an article on India would make the article "non-neutral". Unpleasant facts cannot be wished away; or deleted just to maintain so-called "neutrality".

Similarly the following sentence about ISI involvement in the attack on Indian embassy in Kabul "United States President George W. Bush confronted Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani with evidence and warned him that in the case of another such attack he would have to take "serious action" (with proper citation) may not be liked by some but a fact is a fact is a fact.

The sentence "The Arabian Sea stood between Junagadh and Pakistan" made no sense. That is why some editor had added "" previously. I replaced it with "Junagadh was not contiguous to Pakistan and other states physically separated it from Pakistan". Rao Ravindra (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The assertion of non-neutrality without specific instances and suggestions for resolving the issue is unconstructive. It is requested that specific instances be pointed out and explained. AshLin (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the above comment after this edit. And as I said this site is cited elsewhere but not for describing India's pov on Junagadh. -- S M S  Talk 14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki
Suomi and Svenska links are really referring to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, not this article. --80.248.164.6 (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Links
>> Reconnecting Punjab: Shahbaz Sharif’s Mixed Signals(Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)).

Non-Neutral Content
The neutrality of this page is a big question as only point of view from one side (India) is presented which shows Pakistan as a terrorist and India as an innocent victim. The fact is more then that. What about the Indian involvement in Pakistan's Baluchistan Provence? as it is stated, in part, on other Wiki Pages like Balochistan_conflict and on other media like Ex-Indian Army chief admits sponsoring terrorism in Balochistan and many more.--Qaiser Mehmood 02:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaiser73pk (talk • contribs)