Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948/Archive 1

Converging the pictures into a gif file
While the maps are exhaustive, it can be quite cumbersome to understand for a newcomer. So I suggest that someone take up the job of merging all the maps into a gif file that shows the conflict in a seamless single image. Wikipedia currently does not have anything for flash so gif files are the only solution unless anyone else has any better ideas.--Idleguy 06:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Er, would be reluctant to change the maps, they took weeks to do, working from the somewhat opaque Indian official history. The history of the war is almost incomprehensable without the maps! There are no other maps in existance of the front lines Mike Young 14:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, mike and idleguy, I tried to bundle the images provided by mike into a gif, do you think its possible to use it in the article?

LegalEagle (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the Gif. However, I don't think the article would benefit from use of a gif rather than individual maps. This is because the gif would move too fast for people to take in what was happening in the map and relate it to the text. If you made the gif slower then it would take for ever to wind to the end. gifs should be used for simpler things than these.

Gif are great for images of moving things eg atoms, or even for naval battles, but I don't think it works in this particular case.

Thanks for trying. Mike Young (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

AZK
Can someone include a definition for "AZK"? I assume it refers to Pakistani irregular militia, but an encyclopedia should not use abbreviations without explaining them. Thanks.


 * I guess AZK means Azad Kashmir Millitants /soldiers (Azad in urdu means FREE- Alluding to Independance) probably coined by pakistani side. We'll check more into it --Vyzasatya 04:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Correction by Dereck Clark (Dec. 3, 2005)

Way too much military innuendo
Hello, this is an encyclopedia article about a war, not a project about details of military proceedings. And it does not need at all a general conclusion in the end about how to evaluate military details for the future. Please just focus on what is of historical relevance. 84.59.66.251- 00:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hoped that this was. Military history is what was in this official history. The actual text isn't that long, just having 10 pics makes it a large page. Many other wars have much more detail than this, including orders of Battle etc. I found I could not understand anything about this war until I had drawn the pics. Mike Young 13:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

POV
I think it is an issue that every 'major source' is written by the Indian gov't or an Indian army general. There should be more balanced sources than that. Fkh82 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you know any good Pakistani sources?
 * I only had access to the sources given, and could only work with those.
 * Also my work concentrated on where the front lines were and the movement of them. In general you will find more agreement with that between sources on different sides, (eg this town surrendered on this day) than you will on things like causes or casualties.  I therefore avoided mentioning these in the bits of the article I wrote.
 * I found great discrepancies between casualty estimates of Indian and Pakistani scources in the 1967 war when I studied that Mike Young 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"The accession is still questioned by the Pakistanis. The Pakistani claim is that since the majority of the Kashmiri population is Muslim, the princely state should have been given to Pakistan"CAN I ASK MR BIASED AUTHER OF THIS ARTICLE THAT WHAT IS THE OFFICAL STAND OF PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY AND ITS FUTURE SHOULD BE DETERMENED BY KASHMIRI PEOPLE, BY A PLEBASIGHT UNDER UN. MR. AUTHOUR STOP DECEIVING THE WORLD FOR YOUR BELOVED INDIA

Well, the precondition to holding a plebiscite is "Pakistan should withdraw all military forces from Azaad Kashmir". Also, what was pakistan's position on Junagarh? Majority hindu with a muslim ruler who wanted to accede to pakistan.In case of Junagarh, Pakistan didn't want to hold plebiscite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.243.168 (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

exactly Mr. 165.123.243.168

how come India accepted Kashmir's accession while bring up 'will of the people" issue in case of Junagarh--143.167.237.145 (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan Won Because It Captured 2/5 Of Kashmir
This article has far to much about military tactics and little about the cause of the conflict, and its immediate aftermath and outcome.

The fact that Hari Singh chose accession to India over Pakistan and that Pakistan still captured 2/5 of what Indians believe should have been ALL thiers is a blatant Indian defeat, India to this day calls Pakistan administered Kashmir, POK for Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Obviously Indians believe that Pakistan occupies thier territory and thus the 1947 war was a huge defeat for India despite the fact its army was twice the size of Pakistan's.

I would like this article to be clearer on the huge Indian losses in both territory (2/5 of kashmir lost to Pakistan during the war!) and manpower. The format of this article should be similar to the other indo-Pakistan wars.


 * I think you may be over-egging this. It certainly wasn't accepted as a defeat by India. How much of the population ended up in what was Pakistani controlled Kashmir?  The Pakistani objective of fermenting a Muslim revolt and occupying Srinagar was not achieved.  I ususally consider a war to be a defeat if the government loses power as a result of the war. The Indian Government didn't lose power.Mike Young 13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your totally incapacitated, if a country looses 2/5 of anything, land, assets etc its a loss, if this war isnt an indian defeat i dont know what is, I would like to see a menu/bar on this wiki page like on other indo-pak wars,

india lost land...key word "LOST".....india doesnt have to accept defeat for it to be actually defeated....and you say that "I ususally consider a war to be a defeat if the government loses power as a result of the war"......?????.....pakistan did not lose government power during war of 1975 and kargil war.....sure later after kargil there was a coup but the war was not the reason.....india lost......its clear


 * Given that you've been posting the same meaningless rant across talk pages of different Indo-Pak wars, what exactly is the point you intend to make? That Pakistan won all their wars? Or that you want to rewrite history to suit your views?


 * Any person with a passing interest in military history ought to tell you that gaining only 2/5th of a disputed land in a conflict while losing the vast majority to the enemy is hardly classified as a victory. Especially when the land lost to the opponent is more fertile, populous and wealthier as well as containing the region's largest city (Srinagar). And I don't have to shout (read "All Caps") to tell you that it was Pakistan that lost 3/5th of the disputed area of Kashmir!


 * saying that even when the raja of kashmir decided to join with india, and pashtun tribemen attacking indian territory (as india claims) and after attacking takes 2/5 of land that india claims is theirs. so did you not lose 2/5 land to pakistan. i am not pakistani so i frankly dont care who wins, but considering that india cannot accept any defeat is quite pathetic


 * btw, there was no war in 1975, it was in 1971, unless you are referring to the Balochistan skirmish which could hardly be classified as a war. And regarding the results of Kargil, anyone following South Asian events should know that the retreat in Kargil prompted drastic changes culminating in the coup. Unless you wish to believe otherwise. --Idleguy 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all if Pakistan didnt win this war after liberating 2/5 of kashmir who won? India? India won the war by loosing 2/5 of kashmir to a newly formed state of pakistan with half the size of army that India had? So please first of all clairfy who won, it my view the winner here is clearly pakistan.

As for "How much of the population ended up in what was Pakistani controlled Kashmir?"

We dont care about population, we dont want population we care about land! we want land and we got 2/5 of what according to harry singh should have join india, so either that means that India lost land which legally according to them and the accession should be ALL thiers, or pakistan lost the war by liberating 2/5 of kashmir after harry singh chose accesion to India over pakistan.,


 * Your arguments are quite funny at best, both here and in the 65 war talk page. You say you want land more than anything and ended up with only 2/5th of the land that you so desperately sought. Isn't that a reflection that Pakistan failed to occupy the vast tracts of land during the war? Given Pakistan's early mover advantage in sending its troops and tribals to capture Pakistan, they should have done better. But one did not foresee that fellow muslims from Pakistan would start looting and raping Kashmiris instead of capturing vital links giving India the military toehold via Srinagar. The rest is history as most of the gains made by Pakistan backed troops were wiped out.


 * True, India just have the majority of Kashmir ;-) and while it seems India are content with their share, Pakistan having lost the crucial regions of Kashmir during the '47 war is to this day using all means - read wars, militancy and terrorism - to gain back Indian Kashmir. Not that it has been too successful either. The goof up of Operation Gibraltar to "liberate" kashmir in 65 ended in a debacle of a war for Pakistan. Not learning from history they attempted a similar "harebrained scheme" (If I may add that as my personal observation) in 99 for the Kargil peaks and came up naught.


 * Maybe in Pakistani schools they teach that 2/5 > 3/5 just like their own fairy tale version of history. tch. Nothing more to add here. --Idleguy 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy; Lets cut a long story short and why dont you tell me who won this war? India won? Pakistan won? kashmir won? the arms dealers won? who? And please explain to me why if india is so content with its 3/5 it calls azad kashmir pok?

that would cut the chase,. thanks


 * Sometimes a war can end without a decisive military result. There need not always be a victor and a loser since stalemates are also common. Militarily, by the end of 1948, the war had stalemated since neither side could progress any further nor lose any ground. However, a war is looked at from the political, tactical and strategic level. In terms of the end result, the Indians ought to be a more contended lot given that before hostilities began Pakistan had the geographic position since a majority of its troops being centered close to Kashmir's borders as well as the first mover advantage. If anything it is still of great regret to Pakistan for failing to have taken the Valley including Srinagar. This 3/5 of Kashmir holds the key to all the Indus river basin and it is only the Indus Water Treaty that protects Pakistan from an agricultural blockade (which may not be the case during an allout water when India is threatened). Baren land in the Northern Areas is what Pakistan got with only a sliver called Azad Kashmir being remotely fertile in the entire kashmir now under Pakistan.


 * I think it is safe to say that in light of these facts and that the majority of Kashmir (read more fertile, richer and populous) is with India it was a draw, but a draw that the Indians had made the most gains of. Of course you might not fully comprehend this complex matter. ;-) --Idleguy 12:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * and ofcourse india not being able to controll the seperatists constantly fighting for an independant kashmir, freedom from both india and pakistan, and india fails to stabalize a once peacful land which has now turned into one of the most dangerous places in the world, and when after pakistan taking 2/5 of kashmir, azad kashmir is stable and peaceful with out deaths every 5 minutes.....and when yet the indian-occupied kashmiris were promised a refrendum to either chose accetion with india, pakistan, or form an indepentand state, that refrendum order is still in the drawers of monhoman singh's table..........why cant you pakistanis and indians just let kashmir be its own country


 * One line response: Pakistani sponsored terrorism/militancy.

Obviously, Pakistan did not win the war..It attacked a soverign state kashmir at the time, The King succeded the land to India, Having a 52/48% muslim vs hindu/sikh population barely constitutes a majority. The King decided to go with India end of question..When India agreed to the cease fire under the UN suggestion, Pakistan was on retreat. The general at the time recommended to the PM at the time, Nehru not to listen to the UN. Obviously that did not happen. Pakistan is a child from Mother Indias womb..prior to 1947 there was no pakistan..The land of the "pure" is a rogue terrorist nation..where is osama bin laden/.? china? no pakistan...The land of the pure where all converted to islam, the land of the pure is in india. so there is no such thing as pakistan in my opionion..Where is r.q khan..the seller of nuclear technology in pakistan..hiding..where did IRan, North Korea get nuclear technology...from r.q khan..who wanted the "allah" bomb..who are you kidding?..Pakistan is not a country, it is roque terrorist land, which is occupied on ancient Indian land..same thing with afganistan..all part of India..Pakistan started as a terrorist state by attacking Kashmir,,and obvioiusly that still holds true today.
 * Larger response: Pakistan itself has not left its share of Kashmir to hold a referendum (mentioned as one the primary clauses in the UN resolution). So could you stop the boring rhetoric and wonder why the Pak troops themselves are yet to vacate the area to enable holding the plebiscite? Just because a few terrorists with help from the other side of the border indulge in petty criminal activities ranging from murder, extortion, bank robberies, narcotics and illegal arms doesn't mean they speak for the whole populace. A recent UK based research firm conducted a survey that showed that nearly 2/3rds of Indian Kashmiris felt they would be better off in India with just one in 20 saying joining Pakistan would be better option! Violence is not proof that the local people wish to separate. See Operation Gibraltar for one proof of how Pakistan tried to instigate Kashmiris and flopped badly and you'll know. Just because Al Quaeda uses violence in the name of Islam, does it mean that you or the majority moderate muslims subscribe to his narrow views? Same with Kashmiri terrorists who resort to violence; most of the Kashmiris with whom I've had interactions with don't really support these imported terrorists and henchmen of ISI. --Idleguy 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ALL I GOT TO SAY IS THAT IT IS OBVIOUS PAKISTAN WON THIS WAR, BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!!!!!! AND THIS IDLE GUY IS ENTRAPPED IN THE MASS PROPAGANDA MEDIA OF INDIA, CARRY ON DUDE!

KASHMIR IS OCCUPIED BY INDIA! OCCUPIED ILLEGALLY AND ONE DAY INSHALLAH IT WILL BECOME AZAAAD THE DAY ISLAM AND MUSLIMS WILL PREVAIL IN THE WORLD AND HOPE IT IS IN YOUR LIFETIME SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE ERRORS IN YOUR WAY!!! AMEEN!

Er, I don't understand this. Even if, as you seem to hope, Pakistan attacked Kashmir and occupied it tomorrow, how would that change what has happened in the past? Mike Young 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

" This 3/5 of Kashmir holds the key to all the Indus river basin and it is only the Indus Water Treaty that protects Pakistan from an agricultural blockade (which may not be the case during an allout water when India is threatened). Baren land in the Northern Areas is what Pakistan got with only a sliver called Azad Kashmir being remotely fertile in the entire kashmir now under Pakistan." A Gem by Idleguy..

Idleguy, the above comment shows how under qualified you are, First the Indus river originates in Tibet (Now Part of PRC) not India, it passes through India on the way into Pakistan in which the Indus river is almost entirely contained, secondly the 2/5 of Land that Pakistan liberated holds the key to central asia, India thankfully has no direct access to central asia and thus requires transit rights from Pakistan to move its low quality products into central asia, India got overpopulated land, riven with civil war, and no border or access to central asia.




 * Friend, I hope you can find an optometrist as it appears you are misreading my statement. I said "Indus river basin" not originating place of the Indus river. A river basin is different from a single river. I sincerely hope you can look it up in the atlas or map and find that most of the waters of the indus basin flows through india before reaching Pakistan. A series of dams would be enough to block the flow, thus starving pak agriculture. Elementary, my dear friend. As for "central asia" link, afghanistan, the sole country u mistakenly believe as "central asia" even isn't Central Asia by any standards (unless maybe the UNESCO view, which anyway puts north india as central asia). Afghanistan is in south asia so, again I find you unloading the same unverified tosh in here.


 * I believe that India might not lose a ton of money by not moving goods to Afghanistan, not exactly a thriving economy and I should point that civil war exists in Pakistan too. Infact it was a civil war in 1971 that led to Pakistan losing a border with Burma. It was mainly because your leaders, like you now, failed to appreciate the geographic and linguistic diversity and paid the ultimate price by surrendering East Pakistan. A border, One lakh soldiers and half the nation gone in less than a fortnight. Please take time to read history and strategy of warfare amidst others before jumping in here with dubious statements. --Idleguy 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First im no fried of yours, so please dont call me such, Second Pakistan has the largest irrigation system in the world, so this notion of a "starving pak agri" is just laughable. Third the partition of India caused India to loose its borders with Iran and Afghanistan and robbed your country of a border with these emerging regions ie Middle east (Iran) and C.ASIA. Also "It was mainly because your leaders, like you now, failed to appreciate the geographic and linguistic and religious diversity and paid the ultimate price by having thier country partitioned. Two borders, 1 million dead Hindus and sikhs and half the nation gone in less than a fortnight."

You should read history and see why your country was partitioned and salami sliced by Pakistan movement and why the British successfully midwifed the birth of Pakistan.



Idleguy; look at this Partition of India, see why your country was dismembered/partitioned. It was because people like you were unwilling to extend minorities thier rightful rights.


 * The Partition was done by the British before independence and wasn't due to a war with the nation's arch rivals after it's establishment as a modern state. There is an ocean of difference between having a foreign government doing the partition and a native government losing its territories despite having an army of the "pure". Maybe the failure to grasp such fundamentals is the reason why Pakistan Army has lost territory it held from East Pakistan to Siachen to Kargil. And don't use "your country" as if Pakistan just dropped from the skies one fine morning; before independence this region (British India/Raj) was actually "your country" too. And it was, ironically, "your country" that was partitioned as well with a million muslims dead. If anything both sides suffered and ended up with casualties and a lasting mutual hatred much to the advantage of the British. The "India" you say (British India) included a lot of modern day countries including Burma so what difference does it make to the Republic of India if they werent part of it when the nation became sovereign? So don't sound silly with history and using low-minded words like "salami slicing" only portrays your insensitiveness to the human tragedy of partition that affected people of different religions. And the partition wasn't completed in "in less than a fortnight" as you falsely believe!!! That is the kind of half baked historical knowledge you possess about "your country".


 * That you still believe Afghanistan to be in Central Asia amuses me. :-) You also don't seem to grasp the difference between a current situation and what if scenario. So you might never understand the concept of control of rivers and the waters until a blockade happens or more dams are constructed. I could suggest you read up on this issue (and a lot others as well) but I would only be wasting time because you wouldn't see the light of it anyway.


 * btw, if you have anything to add/edit on the article do it there instead of just debating here with me or others. You can't change history by claiming that losing most of the Kashmir region is actually a victory. I hope you can stop this and edit the article if possible, because this isn't a forum. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox The talk page is only for discussing the article's edits. Any further replies not directly related to the 47 war article will be ignored. --Idleguy 10:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Very simple, before the Pakistani forces went in to liberate Kashmir, the whole of it was going to be usurped by India. However after the action was taken, a great chunk of it was lopped off and it became a part of Pakistan instead of India. A war was won and now we have IdleGuys here trying to ignore history by burying their heads in the sand. If that makes you feel better then hey go ahead and enjoy this blissful state of ignorance.WasimKhan80 08:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So the war was a Pakistani invasion of India then? If you claim to have won the war because you captured territory then you must accept the fact that J&K was really part of India. If J&K should be part of Pakistan, then India has won, because its occupied all this land that should be in Pakistan. Seriously though, it was a stalemate because neither sides military ambitions came to their full fruition. Mike Young 23:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

this is what really happened...."When the Maharaja resisted to sign the agreement, India airlifted troops to Srinagar where they engaged in a military encounter with local Kashmiri Rebels who wanted the Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan. British appointed Army Chief of Pakistan Douglas Gracey did not send troops to the Kashmir front and refused to obey the order to do so given by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Governor-General of Pakistan. His argument was that the Indian forces occupying Kashmir represented the British Crown and so did he hence he could not engage in a military encounter with Indian forces. Pakistan finally did manage to send troops to Kashmir but by then the Indian forces had taken control of the two third territory of Kashmir." Now keeping this in mind, You have to agree that 65% of Kashmir had already been taken by india without any resistance from Pakistan but by the end of the war they had only 55% left so Pakistan DID win the war and the state of Jammu and Kashmir is not indian territory as the agreement was not signed willfully by Hari Singh instead he was forced to sign and later India also refused to carry out a referendum as advised by the U.N because they knew that Kasmiri people would never want India to rule over Kashmir... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentle Man: I always wanted to know the real truth behind this war.I though many times over it and I have a doubt, i believe you guys should be able to clarify.Even though i may appear biased towards my understanding of the events, i'd like to take a broader view of this. Till Maharajah Hari singh signed the paper of accession,Kashmir was an independent state still in dilemma about its future course of action.I believe - and i may not be correct - Till this time Pakistan has captured large swathe of then Independent Kashmir.So even if Hari singh Has decided to  go with India - logically - he did not had the moral or legal rights over the area that he has already lost to Pakistan forces - (before signing the instrument of accession) So: If Since Hari singh has already lost parts of the Kashmir,how could India have lost the war - Since it never gotten those area in first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusR (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Indian Bias
This article like any other article related with India and Pakistan is biased. It seems, it is written by an official historian of Government of India, with a very poor command over history and language.

There is a need to fix this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.27.8 (talk • contribs)


 * User:Mike Young was the person who wrote this primarily and he is clearly not Indian.--Idleguy 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

To be bias you do not have to be an Indian, any one can be biased. The problem is that some people have monopolised these pages and they think that they own these pages. If they want they can have their personal websites and do whatever they want.

Maakhter 09:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you stop your rant until you can provide coherent arguments, and clear, specific points. Yelling "biased" while providing no reason just makes your claims dubious. Thank you. --Ragib 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity and I'm fairly neutral here (atheist UK citizen not of Indian or Pakistani descent) the article says that Kashmir was invaded by tribals and the Pakistani army at the time of the British withdrawal at which time, the Maharaja "decided to accede Kashmir to secular India" prompting India to send troops to the region. The Maharaja appears to have accepted joining the Inian Union as the only way he could retain some limited control of the province. The maps used although fairly crude IMO (sorry but perhaps you could overlay it on a map of the area?) seem to suggest that the Indians once airlifted into the capital managed to hold it and only push a little beyond it. Under the UN settlement Pakistan was allowed to keep what it had captured in it's initial push and India was granted the greater part of the province including apparently "the most populous and fertile regions." I wouldn't call this a Pakistani victory insomuch as they failed in their aim to capture the whole region but they did succeed in holding what they had taken once the Indian troops arrived. The Indians however succeeded in gaining control of the "more fertile regions" and the capital and keeping it. Neither side in my opinion won or lost the war because it ended in stalemate (my POV). Peraps the only real losers are those who lived and still live in the area who have had to bear the brunt of the cost, whether they are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc... Saying one side or another won or lost is purely someone's own opinion and has a place in discussion pages like these.

Oh and "Many of the invading muslims soldiers also indulged in acts of sabotage, arson and rape of Kashmiris."??? umm I'm not too sure about Wikipedia rules at this stage, but I find this really does not fit with the whole mood of the article and feels like someone added it at a later stage and that it should get removed. I find it really, really hard to believe that all the Indian soldiers were perfect little angels and that it was only the Muslims who engaged in such activities. Blatantly biased addition anyone?? 10:30AMish (melbourne, australia time xD) 02-may-2007


 * Indians may not be angels, but that is not the point here. The sources, both independent and Pakistani clearly mention that only the pakistani-backed tribals indulged in such acts. Do you find it really, really that hard to believe that even with sources that only the muslims indulged in such activities? I hope people would read the sources before reporting in here. Thanks. Idleguy 03:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I believe that this article has a clear and consistent pro-Indian bias. For example:India's army "recovers" 2/3 of Kashmir while Pakistan's army "captures" the other 1/3. While the information on this page is good, it is seriously lacking a respectable explaination of the Pakistani POV of the war. The section of the article "Stages of the War" is written exclusively from the POV of India's tactical perspective. Oleanna1104 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture at the start is the proff of the fact that the page is biased, "Indian soldiers surrounding an enemy position". Also," muslims raped kashmiries. It was the kashmiri tribe people who stood against india. At another place, "Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered". The number of casulaties were 1500-5000 for the pakistani army at start, so, the uncertanity is 300%. Eventhough, Pakistani army and tribes, starting from zero, occupied 2/5th of kashmir, despite being clear victory they surred 5 times more casulaties than indians. Strange, is't it? What else can prove that the article is not biased.

I agree there are several NPOV issues here that must be addressed. This article claims to be military history and is admirably written at times but there is a quite clear Pro-Indian feel. 2:01 PM (GMT +10)


 * True there are some POV issues at some areas, but to assume that everything is pro-Indian is not entirely correct for many of these casualty figures and statements are backed by multiple sources. Even Pakistani authors have not failed to comment on the rape, looting and arson indulged by the lashkar in 1947 (source provided). So please go through the sources before raising it here. Idleguy 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This page should be merged with Indo-Pakistani Wars.

There are several reasons to merge this page:

1- Indo-Pakistani Wars and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.

2- These pages have a large overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.27.8 (talk • contribs)


 * Indo Pakistani wars refers to all the wars and each war has its own cause and results and any person with a good grasp of history should tell you that everything is related but different. Idleguy 03:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok ive just delete a part of the article until someone does a complete revert: reasons, someone decided to delete the part regarding pakistans victories, and left the indian victories listed.

some really shamless people on wiki, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.244.12 (talk • contribs)


 * Please don't blank sections to make your point. There was never a section regarding pakistan victories nor was/is there one for the Indian victories. Idleguy 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange, that, Im postitive there was a line in the article something along the lines of 'due to pakistans military victories it was able to capture 2/5 of kashmir' the Indian victories are listed aswell as even a picture of Indian troops at a so called "pakistani position" most likely it was a position of kashmiri army, but no picture of pakistani troops over running Indian troops?

Idleguy, as a man of fairness, free from prejeduice, bias, and free from anykind of ulterior motives surely you agree that there should be a picture of pakistani troops aswell?

Not to mention EVERY SINGLE SOURCE IS Indian

“Operations In Jammu and Kashmir 1947-1948” Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Thomson Press (India) Limited. New Delhi 1987. This is the Indian Official History, and was the major source for this work. (Indian source)

“The Indian Army After Independence”, by KC Praval, 1993. Lancer International, 1-897829-45-0 “Slender Was The Thread: The Kashmir confrontation 1947-1948”, by Maj Gen LP Sen, 1969. Orient Longmans Ltd New Delhi. (Indian source)

“Without Baggage: A personal account of the Jammu and Kashmir Operations 1947-1949” Lt Gen. E. A. Vas. 1987. Natraj Publishers Dehradun. ISBN 81-85019-09-6. (Indian Source)

Other Sources “The Indian Armour: History Of The Indian Armoured Corps 1941-1971”, by Maj Gen Gurcharn Sandu, (Indian source)

1987, Vision Books Private Limited, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7094-004-4. (Indian source)

“Thunder over Kashmir”, by Lt Col Maurice Cohen. 1955 Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad (Indian source)

“Battle of Zoji La”, by Brig Gen SR Hinds, Military Digest, New Delhi, 1962. “History of Jammu and Kashmir Rifles (1820-1956)”, by Maj K Barhma Singh, Lancer International New Dehli, 1990, ISBN 81-7062-091-0.

(yet MORE,.. Indian sources)

So not a single Neutral or Pakistani source? Or even a single Pakistani picture?

We all know India has won all its wars with all its neighbours, 1947/8, 1962, 1965, 1971, 1984,1998 ,1999, With over half dozen decisive Indian victories in wars with Pakistan and China, and Indian Nuclear weapons, Surely it wouldnt be out of place to have atleast one or maybe two neutral sources? maybe then if Indian military might allows we can add one pakistani source, and If Indian military prowness allows we perhaps one day can have a pakistani picture.

81.153.244.12 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Man of peace


 * Ah, that line (not section) "Pakistan's victories" was probably wrongly worded. Equally wrong was that there was a version about "Indian victories" in the same vein. The reason: gaining only 2/5 of a territory is hardly a victory by any standards. If anything India's majority gains of 3/5 over kashmir should be a "victory" by this token. Both aren't fully true. So both stand removed since neither managed to a victory over the entire Kashmir. Instead a different approach has been taken that conveys who controls how much and so on.


 * As for the sources, the article was primarily written by User:Mike Young (a British national) who used many Indian sources. It so happens that a lot of information, books and articles on the 47 war is largely from India. Few, if any, were from neutral sources and hardly any from Pakistan that I have come across. An article in Pakistan's military journal, DefenceJournal states the same issue on Pakistan and its three wars "No free analysis of any of these three wars have been possible as regrettably, no information of any political or military importance has been released by the Government of Pakistan to either researchers or analysts. This, despite the fact that the Government of India has made most of its official records, including War Diaries and Action Reports, available to Indian researchers and writers, who were consequently able to write a large number of books concerning those wars. Not all of them very complimentary for the Indian higher ups. However, for some reasons known only to the military authorities, in Pakistan we have jealously guarded all important information necessary to any sensible analysis of those wars, particularly the last two." That from the horse's mouth that few records exists on wars fought by Pakistan. While doing research on the Kargil War, the same problem persisted. While India had done an official commission on the war apart from an internal review of the armed forces, both published in the media, Pakistan hadn't produced any. That being the case, it would be impossible to expect Pakistani sources for the different wars.


 * Regarding the photo issue, it was uploaded by someone who might have access to the images from Indian Military and nothing is stopping you or anyone from finding ones from Pakistan Army and uploading the same. If you could get some of Pak Army - with a free to use tag - it would be nice. However, I'll make the corrections regarding the image description in the article but there wasn't any "Kashmir army", only tribals/lashkar since Kashmir officially chose to joing India and therefore the official "Kashmir army" couldn't have fought on Pakistan's side. Idleguy 09:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Im glad most last comment helped refresh your memory vis-via the Pakistani victories being removed, However I daresay that the Indian victories are still listed, "On the use of armour The use of light tanks and armoured cars was important at two stages of the war. Both of these Indian victories involved very small numbers of AFVs. These were:-", Surely the Indian victories should also be removed as the Pakistani victories sentence was also removed. In fairness, neither side secured a decisive victory, So 'Indian victory' sentence should also be removed since we are taking "a different approach".

As for Neutral sources, how about Global security, FAS, or onwar.com.

As for Pakistani sources how about defencejournal.com, pakdef.info,

Regarding the photo issue, thank you for making the edit, it was strange that it was titled 'Indian troops over-run Pakistani position', If you look closely at the picture the so-called "Pakistanis" look very, very ill-equiped, had they been Pakistani troops they would have been equiped EXACTLY the same as the Indian troops both armies consisted of British Indian military units. Most likely as I mentioned they were tribals or somekind of local milita .Its a pity that wikipedians left the tag the way it was without looking at the picture carefully, such carelessness ammounts to propaganda and wiki is not the place for that.

One other thing, I think we should have a section regarding the British role in the conflict, Both India and Pakistan had 'white' British COAS, Both refused to fight against the other beliving it to be a war between Brit officers, This also prevented each side from achieving a decisive victory, Many in Pakistan believe British helped India invade Kashmir, and many in India believe the British helped Pakistan invade Kashmir. So I think the British role in the conflict surely deserves a mention.

Ironic is it not? That the British officers of the Indian and Pakistan armies rufused outright to fight against another, yet encouraged Hindu-muslim strife, rioting, and played a key role in ensuring hatred, and future wars. I hope both sides learn from mistakes of playing into colonial hands.

86.131.121.178 10:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Man of peace


 * I think you may be reading that out of context. The two "Indian victories" it was referring to wasn't the war but rather specific instances/battles of the war. Please read the section thoroughly. As for the sources, the said sources aren't really thorough about this war as is thought. I have gone through some of them previously like onwar.com etc. and many lack operational and tactical details as in this articles. the maps contained herein are the most detailed I have seen. And if you noticed what I had written about Pakistani sources, or the lack of it, the websites seem to be the only resource and since this war has so many loopholes in missing information it will take time to improve this article. But I will see what I can do to improve this and include more neutral/pakistani sources. Idleguy 12:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Territiorial changes
You have


 * India captures roughly 101,387 km of Kashmir while the regions of Azad Kashmir (13,350km) and Northern Areas (27,991km) are held by Pakistan

There is a controversy as to if J&K was part of Pakistan invaded by India or part of India invaded by Pakistan, The above statement is Pro Pakistani.

How about


 * India holds 101,387 km of Kashmir. Pakistan holds Azad Kashmir (13,350km) and Northern Areas (27,991km) ?

Will change if no comments in the next few days Mike Young 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) By the way the area of Northern areas is 72496 KM2

INDIAN PROPANGANDA
This article is clearly written by Indian propangandists trying to underscore Pakistan’s military successes. NOT A SINGLE PAKISTANI WAR PICTURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.92.54 (talk • contribs)

YES, VERY NEUTRAL. LOL.


 * there is hardly any picture in the entire article. Ok, one does exist but it shows both Indian and Pakistani (dead) troops. So I don't understand what you intend to say. Idleguy 18:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The truth is that there was hardly any media presence during this war, specially on the Pakistani side. 96.52.193.72 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * our fellow wikipideans from Pakistan often raise objections on Neutrality in my opinion their Biased education is to blame for that. I will quote a line from blog a Pakistani News Reporter. This will answer why Pakistanis have a biased thinking or have an education biased against india "The public was led to believe that India had launched a ‘surprise attack’ on Pakistan, and that ‘Hindu India’ would be taught a lesson. Thus the armed forces had full public support." you can read more here . cheers. http://mehmal.blogspot.com/2007/09/myth-of-september-6-1965.html --dBigXray (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

British Officers
I was interested by the allegation ('may have') British officers helped Pakistani militants plan the attack. Nothing else I've read on this subject has mentioned it. It seems counterintuitive considering the official British position was to constrain any conflict between Pakistan and India. If someone can't supply a citation, it should probably be removed, and even if it does, the summary of the whole conflict is the wrong place.Agema 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Few Things
Few Things Even a blind person can see that the article is biased. The author has used all Indian sources. I gauss he thinks that there is no Pakistani source, but he will find many, he just needs to open his eyes.

•	The picture at the very beginning tells the wholes story, where Pakistani soldiers are shown dead and the “Brave Indian” soldiers are standing beside them. There would be hundreds of pictures of the 1947 war, but why only this picture was selected? This picture makes you to fell that you are reading an Indian article.

•	The official stand of Pakistani government has always been that Kashmir belong to Kasmiries and they should be given the “Right of self determination” through a referendum under UN”. Here it is written that Pakistan says that as Kashmir is a Muslim state so it belongs to Pakistan. So, please read something before writing, or do not bother to write.

•	“Many of the invading Muslims soldiers also indulged in acts of sabotage, arson and rape of Kashmiries In the Punch valley the Jammu and Kashmir state forces retreated into towns and were besieged.” “Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered”. What else you need to present to prove that the article belongs to INDIAN.

•	“(1,500 - 5,000 killed) Pakistani army”. This is what is at the start (the source of course is Indian), well 300% uncertainty. What’s this? Later it is mentioned that both sides suffered 1500 casualties —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.95.151.127 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Er, this is a Wikipedia article: It does not have a single author. Mike Young 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources vary when giving figures of Pakistani casualties, for Pakistan Govt. has a habit of not disclosing their real losses. To date, no mention of an official casualty list has been prepared by the Pakistan state even for Kargil War, so it's too much to expect them to provide details on the 47 war. Also read up on the two-nation theory and its role in the Kashmir crisis before posting in the talk page. Further, there aren't "hundreds" of pictures from this war, at least not freely available pictures; if anyone finds anything related to this war, please upload it with the right tag. Idleguy 13:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the two nation theory. Yes, according to the two nation theory the Muslim states belong to Pakistan. But for you information, after the UN resolution on Kashmir that gave Kashmiries the right to decide their future, the official stand of Pakistani government has changed. Pakistan has always talked about the implementation of UN resolution. That is why Azad Kashmir, which which is under Pakistani control, has its constitution, president and prime minister, only currency and defence is controlled by Pakistan. And for your information, the official figures of Pakistani casulatied in Kargil are that 357 Pakistani soldiers were killed and 665 wounded. This is what claimed officially by Pakistani government and written by the Musharraf in his book “In the line of fire”.


 * Why not read up further on the UN resolution on the referendum, where it states Pakistan has to vacate its troops first before the next step comes into place. Perhaps Pakistan conveniently ignores this, therefore the whole world just ignores the empty claims by Pakistan. And oh, personal statements made in one's autobiography memoirs (and that too conveniently in a Hindi version) don't constitute the official casualty figures of the state. If that were the case, then ex-PM Sharif's statements would have to be considered more "official". Idleguy 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be rewritten
The article has a biased point of view and lacks context. There's too much reliance on Indian sources. But then, the begin comments are anti-Indian. The military history part is excellent. However, IMHO all discussions of wars should provide some understanding of the socio-political impacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted erroneous comment
The Cause section had this statement... "However at the time of British withdrawal the state was invaded by tribals from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and regular Pakistani soldiers. The Maharaja then decided to accede Kashmir to secular India, which promptly sent troops into Kashmir and thus started a war."

This contradicts itself by saying that Pakistan invaded Kashmir and then that India started the war.

To correct this error I removed the following, "and thus started a war"

Ofhistoricalnote 09:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Size of pics
Have re-extended size of pics, course of war is difficult to follow without referring to the maps, it is therefore better to keep these readable, rather than having to click through as you read. Wikipedia is not paper. Mike Young (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maps
One of the things missing from the maps is a legend that explains the colors and the "borders". I realize this is a sensitive issue, but it needs to be addressed to take into account both the pre and post war situations, otherwise there is little help for the new reader. I think the prewar state of Kashmir and Jammu needs to be indicated, and the post war line of control that divides the Indian and Pakistan administered areas of Kashmir. If the pre war NWFP is indicated on the map, it should be labelled. Who can help with this?Vontrotta (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The first map shows the position before the signing of the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) on 26 October 1947, when Jammu and Kashmir was still (at least as a matter of law) an independent princely state and not part of either new dominion created by the Partition. So orange is the territory of the princely state. The colour green appears to show areas under the military control of the Dominion of Pakistan, and yellow shows areas under the military control of the Union of India. I don't think we need this information as a caption to every map, perhaps just as a caption to the first map? I suppose the colouring scheme is an impartial approach, but technically there was a difference between Indian control of what had become (as a constitutional lawyer would have said at the time) part of India's territory and Pakistani control of areas outside its territory where in general terms the population had a preference for joining Pakistan. I don't know whether it's worth making an issue out of this. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by HotRaja
There have been quite a few edits by this user recently. He has been pushing his POV and making inappropriate edits with dubious citations. I have decided not to revert his last edits as he accused of "vandalising the page". I would rather request other users and/or admins to look in to the validity of the edits and the sources supplied by this user. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Shovon76
The User Shovon76 is agressively blocking changes to this and other India-Pakistan articles. He has consistently undone valid edits and has even falsely labelled them as 'vandalism' which is clearly a breach of wikpedia guidelines. I have tried to engage him in a constructive and meaningful dialogue but he does not appear to be interested in anything other than propagating Indian propoganda. It is to be noted that he has a long history of disagreement with other wikipedia users. --HotRaja (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I have disagreed and also with other Wikipedia editors. That's how we are brought up in a democracy. You may not understand that! What you consider as valid edits are nothing but highly POV materials supporting pro-Pakistani view point. And for the sources provided by you, the less said, the better. How do you justify these sources - 1, 2? Not to talk of numerous unsourced sentences, personal opinions, throwing suspicion on the parentage of a living person (Karan Singh) who has an article in Wikipedia, pushing your POV by inserting sentences like "Meanwhile, Mirpur was liberated by AZK forces." And you call this valid edits? Oh, and when did you try to engage me in a constructive way? Please throw some light on that. By the way, it was me who listed your mediation cabal properly so that it actually shows in the open cases. I am telling you for the last time, "Please STOP your POV pushing. Otherwise, I will be forced to report you to the administrators." In case, you want to change anything, list those down here in the talk page so that you can get others' opinion on the proposed changes. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very pleased that you appreciate the benefits of democracy as gifted to India by the British over the caste system that operated for thousands of years before. Maybe we can now move on to you appreciating the benefit of open, meaningful and constructive dialogue. For the record you are falsely attributing edits to me. I did not write anything about Mirpur being liberated by AZK forces. My changes have been mainly about the historic background to the conflict and I have provided references to this. As you seem now to be acknowledging this is just a different point of view to your own and does not constitute 'vandalism' as you have been falsely labelling. I remind you once again that wikipedia guidelines do NOT permit you to falsely report a different POV as vandalism.

Clearly it would be helpful to all wikipedia users if we can agree a NPOV article but this will require users to enter into dialogue and discuss any changes they are not happy with rather than just blind reverts back to versions that support their own POV. I look forward to working with you and others to produce a more balanced article. Thanks ! --HotRaja (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Size of Areas Occupied by Pakistan / India / China
There seems to be some debate about how much of Kashmir is occupied by Pakistan versus India. The Indian side seems to be saying only 1/3 is occupied by Pakistan and 2/3 by India. The Pakistan side seems to be saying that it is nearly 50:50. Whilst neither side is entirely correct, it is correct to say that both India and Pakistan now occupy similar sizes of the original territory. At least some of this confusion is caused by official Indian Government web sites and also the wikipedia Jammu & Kashmir page including the ENTIRE region of Kashmir in their area numbers, which of course includes the areas occupied by Pakistan and China. So there is a 'double-count' in their numbers. The numbers as far as I have been able to figure out are detailed below.

India occupies 43%, Pakistan occupies 37%, China occupies 20%.

(All land Areas in Km2)

Jammu & Kashmir	       India	        101387	43%

Azad Kashmir	       Pakistan	 13297

Northern Areas	       Pakistan	 72496	37%

Aksai Chin	       China	         42685

Trans Karakoram Tract	China	         5181	20%

Total	235046	100%

--Trevor Bassett (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Bassett (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well! you didn't specify the source of your information. I made some findings too, and that figures were:


 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Occupied area ! Area (Km²) ! Percentage %
 * Indian Occupied
 * 101,437
 * 45.64
 * Pakistan Occupied
 * 78,114
 * 35.15
 * China Occupied
 * 42,685
 * 19.21
 * Total
 * 222,236
 * 100
 * }
 * Total
 * 222,236
 * 100
 * }


 * And these figures are stated at the official website of Indian Occupied Kashmir, not a neutral source but still if we can't find any other source we will have to rely on this. And that the total area of Jammu & Kashmir is 222,236 Km², is also stated in this document of UN. -- S M S  Talk 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still making the same basic mistake - using the website of the Indian Government which itself states that the figures it is showing INCLUDE the areas occupied by Pakistan and Kashmir. What you are claiming is a 'UN source' is in fact a repeat of data produced by the Indian Government.

Two other fundamental mistakes you are making:

1. Pakistan: You have completely missed out the area occupied by Azad Kashmir and appear only to be showing the Northern Areas.

2. China: You have completely missed out the Trans Karakoram Tract

So to be clear:

1. We are both agreed that India occupies 101,437 km2

2. Pakistan: Azad Kashmir is 13,297 km2 as confirmed by the official Azad Kashmir Government website:

Azad Kashmir

The Northern Areas are 72,496 km2 as confirmed here: Northern Areas

3. China: We are agreed that Aksai Chin is 42,685 km2. However, you also need to include the 5,181 km2 for the Trans Karakoram tract.

After you have done all that you should find that the numbers are as previously stated:

Pakistan   37%

India      43%

China      20%

--Trevor Bassett (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are talking about the present position. But this article is only about the 1947 war. So China gaining both Aksai Chin and Tran-Karakoram Tract does not come in to the picture for this article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
I have fully protected this page for one week so the slow-motion edit war and constant reversion can be resolved. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the relevant IPs and accounts - it is clear that there is a considerable amount of socking (through IPs and potentially through accounts too) going on - any continuation of this, and any continuation of the edit war once the protection expires will be frowned upon and will result in blocks. GbT/c 11:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the description of the result, it looks like the protection was needed. I'm Pakistani but "major historic victory" is waaaaay to biased a desciption. Cheese1125 (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was bad decision of the admin to protect article version of IP. Result in the infobox of protected version is easily inappropriate. Also edits were to "neutralise" article, without caring the references given. And those edits were done without edit summary nor proper refs. Doorvery far (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's Try Again
OK Let's see if Pakistani and Indian editors can work TOGETHER and produce a NPOV artcle which we can get some REASONABLE level of agreement on.

I have corrected the results section of the summary to remove reference to Pakistani victory and changed to reflect the relative portions of kashmir gained by India and Pakistan respectively.

Also, I have removed the references to Karan Singh's legitimacy as this had been objected to (even though this was supported by referenced material from Tariq Ali's book "the bitter chill of winter."


 * User:HotRaja, please refrain from reverting as it would attract blocking by WP:3RR. Result in the infobox you propose is not acceptable, also provide references for your claims of "major victory". Regards, Doorvery far (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Doorvery far, you are undoing valid edits and replacing them with unjustified aggressive POV. e.g. blaming all attrocities on only one side 'Pakistani backed tribals'. Where do you see reference to "major victory"? --HotRaja (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:HotRaja. As far as my knowlodge goes weren't KASHMIRIS the one to call Pakistan army for help, if Yes then why the hell Pakistanis rape Kashmiri women...Sounds totally biased and blatant falsehood...Mr User:Doorvery far portrays himself to be nuetral while he puts such facts forward which are totally biased...Please refrain from such Biased-Edits without reference...Adil your (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * HotRaja and Adil your edits are one and the same, also Adil your started editing after HotRaja left, which looks more like a sockpuppet. What you are challenging is as per refs mentioned (supported by 3 refs), if you change it to indian forces instead of tribal forces you have to give ref. Doorvery far (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added back some content you inserted, but content about Douglas Gracey please come up with some reference. Doorvery far (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, If u cannot justify yourself with reference then please don't call me a Sockpuppet.....No.2 I already told you that the claim by you that Pakistan tribals commited the attrocites is WITHOUT any good reference and changing it to indian army is just logical as THEY were the enemies as i already explained above...Two out of three links don't work by the way and the one that does work is such a long article that it would take you six hours to go through and i couldn't find NWFP tribals anywhere in the article so please don't spread falsehood,....Go and check that out yourself.. so don't try to confuse everybody...I also gave proper reference, so you can't just delete it like this...Please Don't vandalize the topic without reference and don't blame everything on the NWFP, it had nothing to do with the Kashmir war....Taliban and Usama-bin-Laden weren't present at the time...So try to read some books instead of Indian-Media websites.....Adil your (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added references for Douglas Gracey and Indian atrocities which are way better references then what you gave...And Out of your four references regarding Atrocities and NWFP tribals only two work while the other two are fake....But all of my four references work properly...So I took the liberty to get rid of those poor references and replace them with a proper one...I hope you don't mind....Plz stop vandalizing now....Adil your (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added your reference of East India Company....Your following link doesn't work... History of J & K.....Now don't vandalize the article in future with fake references like these and stop blaming Pushtuns for Indian Army atrocities without RELIABLE reference...I have given a valid and reliable reference....Stop Vandalizing the topic and try to come to a common understanding and a nuetral point-of-view via discussions.....or I would have to report you to an admin....Adil your (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith in other editors. Stop accusing others as vandals - which is considered uncivil in wikipedia, and others will stop replying to you. Doorvery far (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if you think i was a bit uncivil but all I am trying to do is bring all the editors to a common understanding and a nuetral point-of-view via discussions...But some people just don't want to discuss..... and they revert the edits without any explanation....Kindly explain what to do...??? Adil your (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As for your main contention of brutality by pak army, that has 3 refs supporting it. Also we can change that sentence into attribution - since Maharaja accused so - as compromise between us. What you gave as pdf ref is not a reliable one. And "liberated" is considered POV instead of "captured", some people call Goa invasion as liberation which is not accepted. Also change the article step by step and seek consensus to avoid blind revert. Doorvery far (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for one thing, there is only one link you provided for the Pak army attrocities, not three, and NOWHERE does it say that Pakistan Army Raped Kashmiri women as claimed by earlier edits... My reference had photographs and news reports regarding the Indian Army attrocities.... How can you remove that...But as a gesture of goodwill and to see consensus, I am willing to remove the text regarding Extra-judicial killings by Indian Army... I hope this will end the blame game. Regarding the capturing or liberating.....Fine, Capturing it is.....But I shall remove the part where it says Kashmiris killed all the local Hindus, as it is without reference or citation and is just a biased remark..... Adil your (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I partially undid your edit, removing killings. But rioting has got a reference, so reinstated. Doorvery far (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed
This article is heavily biased in favour of a Pro-Indian POV. More balance is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HotRaja (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked the infobox to avoid pov like "fertile and populous" etc. Now give a look, and also instead of reverting and blaming whole article, please point out where exactly pov is there. Moreover, we should try to improve refs instead of so called "neutralising" by adding "atrocities by both sides instead of one side". Hope you get my point, regards, Doorvery far (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * History before First Anglo-Sikh war is included now, with same text as User:HotRaja. Kindly justify your edits before reverting, regards, Doorvery far (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed unsourced and Indian right wing sources. Added appropriate language where opinions are given, rather than keeping a falsely factual tone. Please recommend other changes necessary. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mughal were weaken by Sikhs first and Jammu was taken over. British only suceeded after Mah Ranjit Singh Death
"Back ground "

Following the rise of the British East India Company and the subsequent decline of the Mughal empire, the power of the Panjab Hill States also began to decline. They therefore became easy targets for the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh who proceeded to conquer these small states one by one. Eventually all the Panjab Hill States were conquered by Ranjit Singh and merged into one state to be called the State of Jammu""

If you read above statement you are being mislead about Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Sikhs leagecy to stop mughal from destroying and looting India for centuries. On of the main reason Sikhism was established to end Mughal invasions and looting of Indian wealths and it's womens. Which took the Sikhs 100+years to achieve. Only after blocking the Mughals the Sikhs and Maharaja took control of Jammu and Kashmir. British only suceeded in Punjab after death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I mean no disrespect to author of above statement but only a correction made so people know the truth.

Mistakes in the Background
"Prior to 1815 the area now known as "Kashmir" was referred to as the "Panjab Hill States" and comprised 22 small independent states."

Punjab Hill States was a term applied by the British. Under the Mughals the hill-states were grouped into the Subah of Lahore, while "Kashmir" was a separate Subah by itself. Subah is the Mughal term for province.

And from Mughal records we learn that the Rajput States in the hills were internally independent, sometimes rebelling against the Mughals and at other times serving under them or paying tribute.

Jonathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.66.12 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the rational for my edit is as follows- 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.[Please see Airavat Singh's excellent source on the military history of these petty but srong kingdoms].This was the primary reason for those places staying Hindu.Any Mughal involvement ,at its peak,was as allies at best.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  I second the above wikipedians comment on the independent status of the Rajput states.

Minor Edit
The end of the first paragraph of this article (Background section) doesn't make sense:

"When the British East India Company Arrived Ending Mughal Influence, but Total Control was established after 1857 of British over India a which too after a Period of 100 Years."

As editing is blocked, could someone tidy it up pls?

Taralala (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

article need to clean up
-it need to formatted better e.g massive gaps in spaces and some section have not citations203.94.136.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Azad Kashmir as belligerent
Note that the article clearly says that the Pakistani army forces referred to themselves as the Azad Kashmir forces. That makes the Pakistan Army a belligerent, whatever it called itself, and does not make Azad Kashmir a belligerent. Also, apparently Azad Kashmir was not formed until 1949, while this war was fought in 1947. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 59.182.254.59, 12 July 2010
As Hindu families were migrating to India, Pakistani Army intervened.A camp was setup by pakistan army to traffic hindu young women to Rawalpindi. They were selectively women of Hindu families. They were raped repeatedly in the camp. They were transported to Rawalpindi in a caravan. A new red light area was established at Rawalpindi famous for virgin and young Hindu women who were someones mothers and sisters a few days ago. Hindu men did not have a tradition of polygamy so rarely they indulged in such activities of dishonoring women except out of revenge.

We walked night and day. There were men and women of all ages and all conditions. Many could not stand the strain. They-mostly women and children-were left on the road. I reached a place called Fazilka, in Indian territory, and discovered that another refugee column in which my father and other relatives had set out had fared much worse. They had been attacked by Muslim mobs on their way: Only 40 or 50 had survived out of 400 or 500 and even these were in hospitals. My aunt had been killed, more than a hundred girls were abducted, and my father rescued from a heap of the dead. ...While in Fazilka, we saw other refugee columns coming in; one of them he says was 'forty miles long', and in another marched " five hundred women who had been stripped naked.......I saw women with their breasts, noses, ears and cheeks cut........one of them told me how her child was roasted and she was asked to partake of the same.....another was ravished in the presence of her husband who was kept tied to a tree.

– Stated under oath by Madanlal Pahwa during the Mahatama Gandhi Murder Trial.

59.182.254.59 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra   (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be relevant to Partition of India. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Desperate attempts by Pakistanis to distort facts
It's funny to see some Pakistanis Wikipedians cribbing about Indian POV in this article when their fellow countrymen are involved in edits such as this --

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947&diff=448961158&oldid=446795843

--King Zebu (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)