Talk:Muhammad Mehmood Alam

Untitled
Fictional Aces?

Surely, there are controversies over his "kills" and except Pakistan nobody accepts him as an air ace, but to name him as a fictional air ace is taking it too far. He isn't fiction. His kills are disputed but he isn't a work of fiction. And I hope User:Freedom skies realises that, since it gets more and more biased with every edit. --Idleguy 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the article before you came here?? the article says that he is "a real person" but "a fictional ace". It's a fact, even his own Pakistani Government does'nt press on his "ace" status irrespective of the popularity of the fakelore. Freedom skies 09:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy: IL Roy is supposed to have been India's first ace? Amazing! It is like India claiming a gold medal in Olympics when an Indian-born from UK wins a race. Roy fought for UK in WW-I while flying with RAF. So how does that make him an Indian ace? First, attempts were made to run-down Alam's five confirmed victories by claiming that one of the victims actually had an engine problem. This is preposterous -- an engine problem at the very instant that a missile was fired! Yes the engine had to give up when it was hit by shrapnel, so what's the big deal? Why can't the credit be given to Alam? Seems that India is cut-up because she has not been able to produce an ace, nay not even a single pilot with multiple kills (compared to PAF's four). The fact of Alam's overstated claims has been taken into account and the total stands at five, confirmed. That is his due, no matter how much he is disliked by the Indians. Just look at the five names of Alam's victims (highlighted in bold) and see if they are not Indian.

As for repeatedly claiming that Alam was a Bengali, he is not. He was born in an Urdu-speaking family in Calcutta.

So, what else is fake in Airknight's write-up? Please bring it out so matters can be discussed in a mature and sensible way.

It is suggested that a most balanced website Combat Heritage of PAF be consulted to clear up matters. Bharat Rakshak should not be the only source.


 * Bharat rakshak wasn't the only source used, nor should a Pakistani website either be proclaimed as blanced (pafcombat). It merely shows that you have double standards on partisan sites and draws a sense of dubiousness. Unfortunately you seem to have some troubles with history. The statement "the only ace of the sub-continent" is contradictory with historical facts. Indra Lal Roy was an Indian (read from subcontinent) and disclaiming his kills is like disclaiming the hundreds of thousands of Indians and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who fought and died in the World Wars by merely stating that they fought for the UK. It seems your attempt to reintroduce jingoism - like the previous editor, see above discussion - this time on Pak's behalf has clouded your judgement. have you forgotten that present day subcontinent was under the British Empire and until 1947 there was no independent India/Pakistan? Surely then his case of being from the subcontinent wouldn't be wrong and your statement of "only ace" renders itself incorrect.


 * Maybe you don't wish to learn from history, instead of trying to accept it you try to poke holes just because you hate facts and read a sanitised version of history. Infact until i mentioned Indra Lal Roy, you had no clue about him. Further MM Alam is a Bengali, see this pakistani editorial if you have problem digesting that a bengali could be superior to urdu speaking pakistanis. incidentally indra lal roy too was a bengali. So your statement "that India is cut-up because she has not been able to produce an ace" is laughable at best given historical data and we aren't here to argue about sharpnels and why India or pakistan claim that way. this is an encyclopedia and facts matter more than our personal takes on whys and whynots so any more such silly statements will be dealt with severly. I hope you read the first tag in the talk page. it reads "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately."


 * you might watch out for the 3RR rule of Wikipedia and try to refrain from such nonsense being bandied about as facts. --Idleguy 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy: I don't see where is the "libellous material" in my edited article. What makes you think that you are the only one who knows about IL Roy? An Indian-born RAF pilot flying for UK, (having signed up from UK) rather than having been sent by the Government of India (like thousands of others) doesn't quite qualify as an 'Indian' hero. Yes, his exploits are indeed worthy and he stands amongst aces but not Indian. He would qualify for that if he had been 'deputed' to fight by the Indian Government or had been in the RIAF. As for Kacker's being a probable, the matter has been quite clearly resolved in Kaiser's article. To keep Alam a step away from ace-dom by such nit-picking is indeed deplorable. As a matter of fact, he has 5 kills plus two damages (read Kaiser's article again and you would find two IAF pilots who made it back with damage). Back to the Bengali-origin bit, have you met Alam? I think that should suffice for an argument (since I have, many times). By the way, I have never given even the slightest hint of Urdu speakers to be superior to Bengalis in any way. Bengalis have a rich history, tradition, art and culture. Their language is one of the world's great languages. Incidentally, a great Bengali ex-PAF pilot Flt Lt Saiful Azam brought laurels to Pakistan due to his exploits in the Middle East: A Sword for Hussein-I and A Sword for Hussein-II So the issue about respect for Bengalis is completely misplaced. If Alam was a Bengali, it would still be a matter of pride for the Pakistanis, but the fact of the matter is that he is an Urdu-speaker. Badrul Ahsan's refrain about Alam being a 'Bengali at heart' is surely not in a literal sense (even if attributed to Alam). Alam was born in West Bengal and brought up in erstwhile East Pakistan. So why should he not be a 'Bengali' at heart? Once again, I repeat that I have no issue with Bengalis or Urdu-speakers. Just trying to straighten out the facts.

I am glad that you have picked some points from my post but still it leaves something to be desired. Till further refinement, here goes: Back to my version.

PS: Unless you agree to mutually 'sit down' and sort out facts, in which case we could post an agreeable version, this back and forth won't end.


 * fyi, the main issue was "the only ace from subcontinent". To put it simply: Wasn't Roy from the subcontinent? It doesn't matter if he fought for RAF or RIAF or IAF, the issue is plain and simple. This was such a foregone conclusion until u decided to belive otherwise. All perhaps because you seem unable to digest the fact that an Indian did that first? And twice as good at that? For your other claims that IAF didn't produce any pilots with multiple kills, you are wrong there. again. There were atleast two pilots with multiple kills. And uniquely one IAF pilot produced kills in both 65 and 71 wars. That remains the only time a subcontinent pilot had kills from different wars against the same opponent. And I'm talking about the confirmed ones only and not the unconfirmed that might number another 3 more. Do your homework buddy and don't jump into statements by underestimating the adversary.


 * As for Alam being linguistically Urdu, can you please provide reliable sources that state his lineage for as many sources I read seem to say that he was grounded in 71 war because he was a Bengali. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources and atleast 3-4 reputable sources on his urdu mother tongue would serve to expel a lot of doubts.


 * Please see Neutral point of view. Both sides of the issue have to be given their due weightage as long as they are properly cited.

This is an encyclopedia not a blog of a biased forum to provide a limited edition version of history. Both sides of the conflict and their views therefore need to be mentioned, especially when there is a controversy like this. Idleguy 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy: I see your point about the sub-continent issue. That bit has been amended. The multiple kills issue was just an aside and does not concern the main article. It would take quite a lot of discussion to sort that, so we can leave it. As for the mother-tongue issue, it is irrelevant since, personally speaking, I find both Urdu and Bengali to be great languages and have the highest and equal respect for their speakers. Its just that Alam has been a close friend and I know more than you. However, purely from a technical standpoint, ie 3-4 reputable sources, I have none right now that I can refer to as a link or as printed material; maybe I can quote later. On these grounds, the language point has also been deleted. Alam's being grounded in 1971 was for reasons that had nothing to do with being a Bengali, which he is not. It was his firebrand leadership of a fighter Squadron, where he was perceived to have the charisma to lead his men into battle on his own, without orders, so actually he was held back. This is again not an issue in the article, so we can do without further discussion on this point.

I am by no means biased and, in fact have, great regard for some of the IAF greats like Nirmal Singh Sekhon, AB Devayya and Alfred Cooke. Just trying to sift fact from fiction. As you will concede, Alam has already been downgraded from 9 kills to 5. Can we leave him as an ace?

I think we are resolving the points of contention. Maybe we can end up at an agreeable 'ceasefire'!! Regards - Airknight.


 * Most seems ok but a few points that still need to be sorted. NPOV suggests that both viewpoints be mentioned. Indians to this day claim Alam shot only 4 while Pak claims 5. The link I provided talks about this. As an unbiased reader it is our duty to inform what both sides of the conflict think about the kills, else we would only be dissipating half truths. That is why I reworded the lead to specify it. After all Pak claims 5, Alam claims 9 and India claims 4. It would only be fair to specify all their viewpoints without dismissing the other. After all its not a minority viewpoint but views from those involved in the conflict: the pilot, the PAF and IAF. This version is more of a neutral ground fit for an encyclopedia IMO.


 * As a side note I wish to inquire how you were able to obtain the images under a commons licence, is it because of your friendship with Alam? Just curious. Idleguy 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)