User talk:Tyler Durden

Archives

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The new timeline
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another thing worth noting from RJ Moore's timeline. Action was happening already on 13 September. Until recently, we were led to believe that Liaquat Ali Khan ordered an invasion on 12 September, and that he was reacting to appeals from the Muslim Conference. I am now beginning to think this meeting was a decoy. Akbar Khan got fooled and so did we. The invasion got ordered much earlier. The 12 September meeting was just for organising the Poonch rebellion. More on that later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The Theory 1 was that the Poonchis went to NWFP for arms, and the Pashtuns heard about the atrocities committed agains them and spontaneously decide to invade Kashmir (all on the same day of course). There have always been significant number of British commentators who supported this theory.

The Theory 2 that has been propagated by whisle-blowing Pakistanis is that the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan ordered the invasion. A meeting on 12 September has been mentioned, where 3 plans were discussed, one to arm the Poonchis, one to organise Pashtun tribals, and the third to organise the former INA officers and other interested Pakistanis from Punjab.

The Theory 3 is that the Pakistani Army organised the invasion under a plan called Operation Gulmarg. It has been discussed in detail by Indian military authors: Bajwa, Jasbir Singh, and various others. It was also mentioned breifly by K. V. Krishna Rao and Arjun Subrahmaniam, But some of the details were vague or inconsistent. A couple of days ago, I decided to check Kalkat's book and, after squeezing enough information from Google snippet view, the details are fairly clear.

Major O. S. Kalkat was serving in the Bannu Brigade at Bannu at the time of partition. He was scheduled to leave for India at the beginning of September. On 20 August, when he was deputising for his commanding officer Brig. C. P. Murry (probably "Murray") who was away, there arrived in the post a letter marked "Personal - Top Secret". In it was a letter from General Frank Messervy attaching the plan for Operation Gulmarg. He was shocked, but quickly realized that the letter had to be personally acknowledged by his brigadier within 24 hours. So, he called him to return to base and gave him the letter. Probably the delay in the acknowledgement was enough for the higher officials to suspect foul play and he was put under house arrest. He escaped, reached Delhi on 18 October, and gave his information to a Gen. Kalwant Singh, Gen. Thapar and the defene minister Sardar Baldev Singh. None of them seems to have believed him. He was recalled on the 24th October after Nehru heard about it after the Operation Gulmarg started.

We don't have the official document that details what the the Army took down from him. Instead, we have the version published in Kalkat's book. I can't say whether this is exactly what he knew on 18th October or he modified it in the light of later events. The format of the version does look like the kind of thing he would have told the officials, point by point. If this is true, then the Theory 2 is entirely fictitious, a decoy meant for our consumption. Accordint to the Operation Gulmarg,
 * 20 lashkars were supposed to be recruited, one from each Pashtun tribe. The Deputy Commissioners (or District Collectors) and the Political Agents were responsible for recruiting them. (Mind you, many of them were British.)
 * The lashkars were supposed to gather at Bannu, Wanna, Peshwar, Kohat, Thall and Nowshera by the first week of September.
 * The Brigade Commanders at these places were to issue them arms, ammunition and clothing and presumaby train/indoctrinate them. (That is why the letter came to Brig. Murry.)
 * The lashkars were supposed to reach Abbottabad, the launching point, on 18th October
 * 10 lashkars were supposed to go into the Valley via three points.
 * Another 10 lashkars were supposed to operate in Poonch, Bhimbar and Rawalakot, with the intenion of capturing Poonch and Rajauri and then advance to Jammu.
 * Each lashkar was assigned a major, a captain and ten JCO's. The entire force was supposed to be commanded by "Major General" Akbar Khan (he was a Colonel at that time), with Birg. Sher Khan assisting. There is no mention of Khurshid Anwar.
 * There is no mention of the Poonch rebels ("Azad Army") except that they were supposed to act as guides for the lashkars, 10 guides per each lashkar. Akbar Khan was also given the task of organising the "Azad Army", the major portion of which was supposed to come from the Muslim element of the J&K State Forces. (Bullet point of 12 of Kalkat.)

Now, notice the corroboration from RJ Moore. It is known that, by 13 September, the Pathans were on the move. Deputy Commissioner of Dera Ismail Khan was involved. Malakand Agency, Swat (princely state), Dir (princely state) and Chitral (princely state) were involved, which were all under the control of Political Agents. And, Pathans were being shipped to Sialkot.

The question now is, who ordered this operation? Obviously, General Messervy couldn't do it on his own. Neither did Liaquat Ali Khan have the power to order the General. Only Jinnah could have ordered it, and the British government had to be in on it. The implications are mind-boggling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late, I was working for my exams. I have finished reading the message and the references just now. And coming to the point:
 * Theory 1 is nonsense — rule out.
 * Here comes a doubt, my new theory, Theory 4 - why is it not possible that Theory 2 (12 September meeting) was a large scale extension and effective implementation of Theory 3 (Operation Gulmarg plan) ? All the difference they have in timelines was a few weeks. I mean the meeting could have been held to discuss, plan and execute things more elaborately and extensively. Also if it was a decoy, we've to assume that Akbar Khan was also a part of decoying it. Because, he was visibly involved in 'Operation Gulmarg', and later wrote a book on these issues, but did not mention a word about the Operation Gulmarg. Now Pakistan was also keeping the '12 September plan' and its details, quite secret later, for so long time after the First Kashmir War, saying Pakistan did not encourage/back the tribal invasion in any way. So why did Akbar Khan even mention about the 4000 guns, '12 September plan', and all, if he was with that decoying objectives? He could have simply endorsed Theory 1. According to Theory 4, as to why Akbar Khan did not mention 'Operation Gulmarg' in his book, may be he thought mentioning the 12 September meeting, in which he was directly & importantly involved, as duly sufficient, because of its predominant consequentiality on the later events (acc to him).
 * The most interesting part is your ending statement. Going by either Theory 3 or Theory 4, the occurrence of Operation Gulmarg plan is validated. So whose doing it was? First of all, are you sure that the Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, or some other guy other than Jinnah, could not, or anyway practically did not order it? There would've been many powerful people, other than the Governal General himself, at that point of time, who could de facto insist or persuade the Commander-in-chief, General Messervy, though they might not be having the de jure powers to do so. And if it was Jinnah who planned this strategically foolish act, what about the accounts in Shams Rehman's writings from the blog you once sent me? After few months Professor Ishaq and Ch Hameed ullah met Quaid e Azam in Karachi where according to professor Qureshi Mr Jinnah asked them annoyingly that why we caused all the mess in Kashmir despite his advice not to indulge in violence? Professor Qureshi said we did not do this. It was your Prime Minister and other top officials who staged the invasion. Mr Qureshi told me that when I said this, Quaid e Azam who was sitting on sofa upwards and leaning towards front, almost fell back against the back of sofa, closed his eyes and did not speak a word for few minutes. This is also a part of decoying? Please remember, Theory 3 alone, is literally rewriting the history. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is becoming worse than the worst conspiracy theory ever. But, unfortunately, that is where the evidence is leading us. Liaquat Ali Khan was led to believe that he was orchestrating the whole thing. But somebody else was orchestrating it behind the scenes and making him think that he was doing it. Honestly, I can't believe that I am writing this. It is like a bad Hollywood movie. But I don't know what else to say.
 * If Akbar Khan was indeed the designated commander, then Liaquat Ali Khan took him off (without knowing he was doing it) and gave the job to Khurshid Anwar, at least for a while. But that "while" was enough to lose the war. That heartburn is what caused Akbar Khan to write the book. He didn't write it to reveal the truth to the world. He wrote it to get at Liaquat Ali Khan and the political class. Remember that Akbar Khan is the only source for the Theory 2. There is no other information available from anywhere else. Shuja Nawaz, Effendi and all other scholars like Srinath Raghavan et al. are just regurgitating Akbar Khan's theory.
 * Akbar Khan wrote a plan for arming the Poonch rebels. 4,000 guns. Nothing compared to the 20,000 Pashtuns organised by Messervy. The Poonchies were a side show. He needed Liaquat Ali Khan to approve that. But Liaquat went beyond his pay grade. He somehow came up with his own idea of a Pashtun invasion, and started interfering with the Army's carefully laid out plan. That is how the war was lost.
 * Khurshid Anwar took all the credit for mobilising the Pashtuns. In reality, they were already mobilised by the time he got there. He probably just gave a few speeches and made himself the commander. The Army thought :it was fine to have some bafoons around; it gives us deniability." So, they let him be. But there wasn't much they could do about it anyway without exposing themselves.
 * Jinnah didn't order it. It is not in his character. He is a constitutionalist. Besides, he liked having princes around, which made him an emperor. Why should he get rid of the princes?
 * The evidence points only one way. On 22nd October, Messervy was in London. By then Kalkat had escaped, and Messervy knew the Indians would know his plan. He had to explain himself to the masters and figure out damage control. I suppose he did. And it worked. India never exposed him. Neither did Pakistan or any of its whistle blowers. The truth is burried for ever, unless the Russians can hack into MI6. There ends the story. The worst Hollywood movie ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many small questions left: Acc to you, if Akbar Khan wrote the his book to get back at Liaquat and other politicians for taking him off, why did he not tell that directly in the book? That, 'Operation Gulmarg' was planned carefully by the army on its own (or someone else outside, whose identity is buried forever - say 'X'), political class fiddled with it later and made things messy and caused the loss of war? I think, it was because he didn't want to reveal that it was the Army (may be with that X) who actually conspired first and wanted to blame it on political class, am I right? And who is this Khurshid Anwar? Why was Liaquat so interested to particularly send this MLNG chief to command such high profile military operations, instead of leaving them to army people themselves?
 * Why was the Brit, Frank Messervy, so enthusiastically favouring and participating in these Pakistan Army's mischievous secret plans? More importantly, why would India not expose Messervy at some point? Who did they cover it for? Besides, it would have greatly strengthened India's case in UN and all, when Pakistan was trying is best to deny its involvement in tribal invasion and endorsing Theory 1!
 * Lastly, why can't we document about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent in the article(s) from the sources we have? —  TylerDurden10 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please check your mail once, cheers! --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See Khurshid Anwar (Major).
 * Akbar Khan told us what he wanted to tell us. Why would he try to expose the British officers? It wouldn't make sense. Pakistan Army was totally dependent on the British. According to a Pakistan Army man, Disgusted with Liaquats conduct in Kashmir war Akbar later planned a coup against him in 1950.
 * As for the British strategies on Kashmir, there is a lot of research on it, which you will have to read at leisure (Panigrahi, Sarila, Dasgupta etc. that I have cited to you before.) Unfortunately, Google didn't put them online. The Operation Gulmarg would have been planned over several months. It didn't happen in four days. 20 August is when it became operational. Kalkat's description of his boss's reaction is revealing: The Brigadier arrived at Bannu on 21st August; and soon I presented the vital document to him. He read it and stood aghast. For a long time he stared into the distance with astonishment. It seemed to have upset him a great deal; probably he did not expect that the newly split Indian and Pakistan armies, with the exigencies of the partition had torn apart, should come to such a pass to fight each other. The Mr. X must have been extremely powerful to pull this off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The major questions, when you have time: — TylerDurden10 (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would India not expose Messervy at some point, if they did come to know about the Operation Gulmarg? Who did they cover it for? Besides, it would have greatly strengthened India's case in UN and all, when Pakistan was trying is best to deny its involvement in tribal invasion and endorsing Theory 1!
 * Why shouldn't we document about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent in the article(s) from the sources we have?


 * As far as I can see, Nehru never suspected somebody in Britain orchestrating it. He probably believed that the Pakistan government (Jinnah, Liaquat and whoever) were doing it. Both Messervy and Lockhart got fired in short order. (Messervy apparently shared the information with Lockhart, but Lockhart never told the political leaders about it.) That was the extent of Nehru's retaliation. Had Nehru suspected that Britain was behind the attack, he would never have taken Kashmir to the UN.
 * We can create a page on Operation Gulmarg, but we don't have good sources. K. V. Krishna Rao is the best I could find. Arjun Subramaniam would have been good, but his coverage is totally wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A seperate page would be too much for the sources we have. But I think we can add content about 'Operation Gulmarg' to a possible extent, in First Kashmir War and 1947 Poonch Rebellion pages.
 * Why because, knowing all this about Operation Gulmarg is a big disappointment to me. It meant that nothing triggered things. Not Poonch rebellion, not 'Hari Singh's tilt towards India', literally nothing! All research on how the India-Pakistan conflict originated is a joke now. It would have started any anyway by Pakistan, and it did. --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I found some more sources.     — TylerDurden10 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for demolishing your expectations. But that is how science progresses. New evidence leads to new theories. The new theory is not anything if not earth-shaking. The India-Pakistan conflict was created by the British. The plans were prepared by the British officers, well before independence. There were only six Pakistani officers at the rank of Colonel or above in 1947, most of them in non-combat roles. It was the British officers that were running the show. 20,000 Pashtun tribesmen were brought to six Brigade headquarters, many of them in which the Kashmir forces themselves fought togethter in the Second World War, in order to wage war on those very forces. Lockhart's testimony is mind-numbing for its callousness:

This is the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Army speaking: subsequently forgotten about. He was more concerned about the treachery of his own subordinate officer than with his own total disregard for his office. Do you know that the British burnt all their documents regarding princely states before they handed things over to the Indians? When the war started, India did not even have a map of Kashmir. The navy was intercepting Pakistan Army communications throughout October, but they didn't have any clue where this action was taking place. Where the hell was "Sensa"?

Indian incompetence in handling Kalkat's information is also mind-boggling. "Sardar" Baldev Singh imagined that a Sikh officer who risked his family to urgently reach Delhi to convey the information in time, was hallucinating! Nehru got mad that Kalkat was ignored. But he didn't process the information either. Did it register with him that the orders were issued on 20th August, by the British C-in-C of Pakistan to British officers? That should have been enough for him to raise hell with Britain. Kalkat's information doesn't appear in the White Paper either. Nobody in India paid any attention to Kalkat's information except the Army people themselves, and that too after Kalkat published his memoirs. And, why is Arjun Subramaniam, the only one outside the Army circles that covered the information doing it so incompetently? Even if nobody else does, one would expect India's security establishment to process the information with the due care that it deserves.

So, there is plenty for you to do. Perhaps not on Wikipedia, but in real world where things should actually happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nehru might have overlooked it, that the letter came by 20th August in Kalkat's testimony, and most probably did not think that it was the Britishers themselves who conspired all this, instead of Pakistanis. He would've thought Britishers were just supporting and following Pakistan's plans. Otherwise why would he go to UN, at least? (Even if we assume that he didn't want to take on the Britishers due to his friendly relations with them.) Or my extreme admiration for the architect of India is blinding my intuition to doubt him, may be?
 * Tell me exactly what to do, outside Wikipedia. I'll try my best, with your help. This should not be left hidden somewhere deep in the archives, it must be brought to light. Scholars like Snedden are writing books with the slogan — it was all initiated because of the all indigenous Poonch rebellion, and people like me get carried away with those foolish theories. Any average researcher/reader in future who wants to find out where it all started, should not burden his mind and waste his time between not so significant & consequential things like Poonch rebellion & 'Hari Singh's tilt' to know the truth. One has to be informed that the intention & plan of the Britishers for Pakistan to invade Kashmir prior to all these events, was the starting point of both the conflict and all the later (non-partition) violence during 1947-48 in J&K. --- TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Kalkat says Nehru threw paperweights at Baldev Singh and Thapar. Indians should have thrown paperweights at Nehru too, because he was the External Affairs minister and he neglected to follow through with the external affairs implications of Kalkat's information. At the least, it could have been used as leverage with the British government. Attlee communicated to Pakistan the very next day that the raiders could stay in Kashmir until a satisfactory settlement was reached, contrary to India's demand. A copy of the communication was dispatched to Lord Ismay, Mountbatten's Chief of Staff, in essence telling Mountbatten what he needs to do. So, Britain had defined its policy within a day of the Indian airlift. Could it have done so if Nehru confronted them with the information? Presumably Messervy was expecting to face hellfire in London. But nothing happened. Nehru dropped the ball. That is the only way of putting it.
 * Kalkat should have been systematically debriefed by trained professionals and all the policy implications should have been worked through. Kalkat should have been retained in the defence ministry as an advisor to the Kashmir operations. Instead, he was posted at Ambala in some random post, and he was kept getting called everyday to Delhi with some stupid question or the other. The whole thing smacks of total incompetence.
 * What can you do outside Wikipedia? Well, you can do a Ph.D. on it and write high-quality journal articles. Then we will be able to cover them in Wikipedia.
 * By the way, I have a good source now. I will add a section in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I added a section in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page. I have my doubts about the claimed leadership by Akbar Khan. For one, he was a Colonel at that time but Kalkat refers to him as "General". He also says that Akbar Khan was to be assisted by Brigadier Sher Khan, even though Sher Khan was senior to him. It is possible that Kalkat's description is the 1983 version, not what he saw in 1947. Somebody needs to find the record from 1947 for this to go anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree very much about the incompetence. But I don't think Nehru compromised national interests, he just made a big mistake. Things were greatly overlooked as far as I can see. To be precise, the timeline was not carefully examined (as you can see, even till today, no writer has given its due importance to the 20 August, and tried to establish that the date was well before any of the so-called "triggering" events in J&K state) and the identity of the orchestrator(s) was not properly analysed, it would have been simply assumed that the Pakistan, by its own, was the perpetrator. Without suspecting the direct involvement from the British Government (which remains only a suspicion, sadly, as we don't have a proof now also). That's where the ball was dropped, acc to me. But then again, its only my theory.
 * I saw the section, cheers! And okay, he might have mis-remembered about it then. It is possible that it was other way round. Colonel Akbar Khan assisting Brigadier Sher Khan, and Kalkat mistakenly interchanged the identities (speculation). I'm afraid as to what other record from 1947 can be found! Unfortunately, Kalkat's account is probably the only record available to anyone regarding the Operation Gulmarg. — Tyler Durden (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank Messervy
I am trying to see what was known about Kalkat before the publication of his book. Absolutely nothing. Here is a book published in 1982, which has loads of analysis about the British. It even has a chapter called British complicity in invasion of Kashmir. But no mention of Kalkat. About Messervy, we learn:

Cunningham records:

If "we" can have "our Muslims", why not Mountbatten have "his Hindus"? Obviously not. Being British, he is not allowed to favour "Hindus". That is so very un-British.

Still think Nehru doesn't deserve those paperweights? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WHAAAT THE ....? LOL!
 * Why did Nehru stay silent even when India was being ironically, reversely alleged? Why was Kalkat and his testimony taken so lite, even after 24 October? What was the reason? Do you have any idea/theory? — Tyler Durden (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nehru was a freedom fighter. He didn't know how to run a state.
 * Patel did, surprisingly. That is how the Kashmir operations succeeded. But Patel got pushed out of Kashmir issues by January. It went downhill from then on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Several weeeks before the event". Perhaps Messery believed that information about his operation got leaked to India several weeks before the event? It would then make sense to assume that India was well-prepared? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehehe, seems reasonable, your assessment. But poor Messervy didn't know, India was too lazy to process the information, or even acknowledge it for that matter! — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Summarize about 'Operation Gulmarg' in the Kashmir conflict article also. You know to choose words carefully, better than I do. — Tyler Durden (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will think about it. It can only be the briefest possible mention because that article has to be based on neutral, third-party sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think, 2-3 lines with attribution shall be appropriate in that case. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Mountbatten's secret visit to Lahore
Generall Muhammad Musa revealed in Dawn, 1 September 1970 that Mountbatten secretly flew to Lahore sometime between 22nd and 27th October. He was accompanied by senior British officers of the Indian Army. He gave no advance announcement and did not inform the Pakistan government, even after landing.

From what we know, R. L. Batra had come to Delhi on 24th, and, that evening, Nehru took Mountbatten aside during a State dinner and told him about the invasion of Kashmir. It appears from several sources that Mountbatten already knew about it. On 25th morning, there was a Defence Committee meeting. On 26th morning, Mahajan came to meet Nehru at his house, after which there was another Defence Committee meeting.

So this visit could have happened only on the 23rd or 24th morning. I would guess 24th. Messervy was already in London. So they would have had to meet Gracey. We have to conclude that Gracey was in Lahore that day, and they called and found out where he was, before landing. Or, perhaps, the first flight brought Gracey from Rawalpindi and the second flight from Delhi brought Mountbatten and Indian officers.

Of course, Yusuf Saraf regards this as a yet another Mountbatten conspiracy, but we know better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Das Gupta
 * Everybody has reproduced this information, but I don't know of anybody that has actually seen the telegram. Some of them say that the telegram was sent by Gracey on 24th. Pakistan government has claimed:
 * We might imagine that these telegrams were sent because Mountbatten and Auchinleck told Gracey to behave. But the question then is, how did Mountbatten and Auchinleck know by 24th morning that an invasion had occurred? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We might imagine that these telegrams were sent because Mountbatten and Auchinleck told Gracey to behave. But the question then is, how did Mountbatten and Auchinleck know by 24th morning that an invasion had occurred? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We might imagine that these telegrams were sent because Mountbatten and Auchinleck told Gracey to behave. But the question then is, how did Mountbatten and Auchinleck know by 24th morning that an invasion had occurred? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * When Yusuf Saraf says "C-in-C of both the dominions", that only gives us Lockhart and Gracey(acting C-in-C, as Messervy was in London then). But when he adds "C-in-C of both the dominions and their senior officers, that can mean Auchinleck. Who else would be the "senior officer" of C-in-Cs, if not Auchinleck, who was the Supreme Commander of all British forces in India and Pakistan? As to how Mountbatten and Auchinleck knew about the invasion by 24th morning, Mountbatten would've gotten the word that this invasion was being planned from the Pakistan's side from some of his British sources. Even if we put the Kalkat's Operation Gulmarg theory aside, one thing is for sure — now that we know beyond doubt that Pakistan had planned the tribal invasion with the involvement of both its administration and Army, it certainly cannot go without the knowledge of the Britishers, who had eyes and ears all over Pakistan's circles in administration and Army. So even if we assume that the British was not involved in the invasion plans, it definitely did support them. Now an interesting part here is, apart from Auchinleck (if he was there in the secret meeting), neither Mountbatten (the Governor General of India) nor Lockhart (the C-in-C of India! seriously?) bothered to give any information regarding the invasion to Indian Government/J&K State Government, before rushing to Pakistan to take safety measures for the Britain. That shows some "beautiful" responsibility.
 * Of course, Yusuf Saraf regards this as a yet another Mountbatten conspiracy - Seriously? Does he mean conspiracy against Pakistan? How? Why would Mountbatten rush and have a secret meeting in Pakistan, with all his British officers of India and Pakistan, to conspire against Pakistan on Kashmir, when the invasion itself was already being launched from the Pakistani side? Does this make any sense anywhere? —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  18:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, we don't have any information about the involvement of the British officers on the Pakistani side, except for Kalkat's information. We do know that Gracey had told Lockhart about the impending invasion sometime that he calls "late October". But he said that he had told only Roy Bucher about it, and he got pissed off with Bucher when Nehru confronted him. We can be sure that Bucher would have been among their senior officers, but were there others? Did Lockhart tell Mountbatten as well, or did Mountbatten get his information via some other source? If so, who was the source that has enough wherewithal to inform Mountbatten?
 * Since the term "Supreme Commander" doesn't occur, it would appear that Auchinleck wasn't among the entourage. If Mountbatten went without Auchinleck, that would be really odd, because he had no authority over Gracey to tell him what to do. He could do that only if he was relaying instructions from Whitehall.
 * As to why Yusuf Saraf thinks it is a conspiracy, it is obvious, isn't it? Mountbatten was apparently restraining Pakistani Army from helping the invasion and doing a yet another favour to India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, talking about the British officers involvement without Kalkat's evidence is WP:OR. I just said it for the discussion's sake. And as to the 'who told Mountbatten' dilemma, I think, Lockhart himself might have told him. (or why not Bucher?)
 * If Mountbatten went without Auchinleck, that would be really odd, because he had no authority over Gracey to tell him what to do. He could do that only if he was relaying instructions from Whitehall. — He had no authority. But he can just warn him of the possible consequences, if this goes to his superiors. That would be enough for a sane Gracey to take a step back. —  Tyler Durden   (talk)  11:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Provisional government
Yusuf Saraf also completely discounts the first Provisional Government. It was apparently formed in Lahore. when he himself was in Lahore running the liberation movement's "Publicity Bureau", but he was told nothing about it. It was apparently formed by the Mirza, and all the people involved were Ahmadiyyas, including Gilkar. Gilkar then went to Rawalpindi and issued press notices. But there was no known involvement of the liberation movement itself in either the formation or the announcement. It looks like Snedden got this controversy right. Sardar Ibrahim was certainly running things during this period. (But the information we have put on the page is from Das Gupta, cites Civil & Military Gazette, 7 November 1947.)

On 25 October, Yusuf Saraf gave a speech in Lahore where he mentioned the (second) Provisional Government and Hamidullah objected to the mention saying that it was unauthorised. However, on 4 November, a meeting was held in Rawalpindi, where everybody accepted Sardar Ibrahim as president. (This part is fine as narrated by Shams Rehman.)

So, things were quite chaotic, with infighting and all. Shams Rehman is right that both the governments were announced at the instigation of Pakistan, presumably to provide cover for the military actions being launched, but the Muslim Conference ratified it (in a manner of speaking) on 4 November. The appointed minister from Jammu arranged for lorry-loads of refugee civil servants to be shipped from Jammu, who were then appointed to their respective departments, with promotions, in the new government. But, all these ministers and officials had nothing to do for a quite a while! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Gilkar then went to Rawalpindi and issued press notices. - Wasn't Gikar arrested in Srinagar, and that's how the first provisional government fizzled out, as the article says now?
 * 1947 Poonch Rebellion - Seems like every piece of this article is an apparent mess. I did not have an iota of idea regarding what a chaos this subject is, when I created the article. You seriously deserve a medal for putting so much amount of remarkable efforts for it. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * For Yusuf Saraf, the provisional government was basically mythical, because it had no support or authority from anybody. But we have CMG saying that Sardar Ibrahim was the appointed PM. He certainly wasn't mythical. Neither did he fizzle out. So, I guess we have to ignore Saraf. (Gilkar issued press notices before he went to Srinagar. Why he went to Srinagar is not clear either. Saraf doesn't know anything about it. Some people have said that he went to talk to Sheikh Abdullah and persuade him to support Pakistan.)
 * As for the article, we certainly know a lot more about the subject now than we did when you started it. So no harm done! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See Muhammad Yusuf Saraf. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

D-day
As we have read elsewhere, there were two D-days: 6 October, when the Poonch Rebellion was launched, and 22 October, when the tribal invasion was launched. I haven't yet located this discussion in the book, but there is some evidene that the second D-day of 22 October was inconvenient from the Pakistani point of view. Saraf says that, after Abdullah's release, roughly a week before his trip to Delhi, three Punjabi politicians visited him including Mian Iftikharuddin. Abdullah mentioned the other two in his autobiography but omitted Iftikharuddin. According to Saraf, the three of them persuaded Abdullah to support accession to Pakistan. Sheikh agreed to consider it, stated his conditions, and sent G. M. Sadiq to negotiate. He himself promised to visit Pakistan soon after his trip to Delhi. While he was still in Delhi, the invasion got launched.

How did this happen? The dates are not mentioned clearly. But I surmise that the three politicians must have visited around 12 October, a week before Abdullah's trip to Delhi around 19 October. So, on 12 October, Iftikharuddin didn't know that there was a D-day on 22 October. That seems strange. On the other hand, Major A.S.B. Shah, another central minister that was trying to negotiate with Mahajan in Srinagar, seems to have known. He was giving ultimatums. "Sign this or else..." After being turned down, he went back to Pakistan and warned Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan on 18 October that aggression on Kashmir would provoke the Maharaja to accede to India.

Iftikharuddin must have been in touch with Liaquat Ali Khan. He was in the planning meeting on 12 September. So, this seems to imply that the timetable was not under the control of Liaquat Ali Khan. Who was controlling it?

There are also issues with numbers. Saraf says that Khurshid Anwar arranged with Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan for 2,000 tribesmen. But Anwar said he went in with 4,000 tribesmen. But other independent observers have said in excess of 12,000. These tribesmen apparently kept on coming even after the invasion started. Who was sending them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * First things first. Saraf says that, after Abdullah's release, roughly a week before his trip to Delhi, three Punjabi politicians visited him including Mian Iftikharuddin. Abdullah mentioned the other two in his autobiography but omitted Iftikharuddin. - Then how do you know that Iftikharuddin is one among the three?
 * You mean, how does Saraf know? Mr. Justice Sheikh Anwarul Haq, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who accompanied the delegation to Srinagar confirmed to this writer on 28th July, 1974 while on a visit to Muzaffarabad in the company of Mr. Hamoor-ur-Rehman, Chief Justice, that it had been agreed that Sheikh Abdullah would visit Karachi after his visit to Delhi for talks with the Pakistan Government. The three Pakistani leaders then returned to Lahore. (p.95) Pretty respectable source there. Let us note that Iftikharuddin is a pretty central figure in the whole saga. Sardar Ibrahim got his attention in Lahore (and only his), and he then set the ball rolling, leading to the 12 September meeting. Iftikharuddin knew that the Muslim Conference was moribund and the National Conference held the key to the state. So he was opening a second channel. He [Abdullah] also told them that so long as he did not come to Karachi, the situation should not be precipitated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Major A.S.B. Shah, another central minister... was giving ultimatums (to Mahajan). "Sign this or else..." After being turned down, he went back to Pakistan and warned Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan on 18 October that aggression on Kashmir would provoke the Maharaja to accede to India. - This doesn't give enough evidence to believe that he particularly knew the timeline of 22 October.
 * The manner of his negotiation with Mahajan indicates that he knew that things were going to get "precipitated". The fact that he went back and met Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan shows that he knew what was going on. He may not have known the exact date, but he knew that it was close. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All these aside, if all your theory is true, there are only two possibilities. 1) The tribal invasion was mostly indigenous. 2) Akbar Khan along with the British officers in the Army planned this, and only they knew all the details about this. 1) is ruled out for so many reasons. But as usual, we need evidence for 2). —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) No, indigenous invasion has been ruled out by Robin James Moore. It was at least a "provincial operation" (from NWFP). 2) There is strong circumstantial support that it was an Army operation. Firstly, the scale of it, and secondly the lack of knowledge of its scale by any of the politicians. (When George Cunningham called Liaquat Ali Khan's office, he was asked, how many men have we got there? Are they getting their supplies all right? Ergo, Liaquat Ali Khan did not know about the details either. It has been outsourced to Khan Abdul.) Nobody in Poonch knew about it. General Kiani didn't know about it. The Pir of Manki Sharif didn't know about it. Thirdly, the timing of it. It was sudden and massive. Everybody was shocked, though they all welcomed it. Khurshid Anwar had totally outdone himself! Or somebody outdid him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

On the Maharaja
Some revelations (p.64):

Sheikh Abdullah says (Flames of Chinar, p.91)

In case you start wondering whether Patel did this, I don't think so. Mahajan was Hari Singh's own choice, picked in April/May 1947. It was only after Mahajan accepted the post of PM in mid-September that he visited Delhi and started talking to Patel as well as Nehru about Kashmir. There is no evidence that either of them had any influence with Hari Singh prior to this. (In fact, they were considered "enemies".) It is true that Hari Singh got under the influence of Arya Samaj towards 1946-47, but that was most likely due to his wife, Tara Devi, and also the prevailing partition tensions. Both Mahajan and Batra might have been the Maharani's choices. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see. So your position that — Hari Singh was "secular" until his power had gone at stake, and until he came under (or was driven to) the influence of Arya Samaji circles — is correct. I regret ridiculing this perspective before. :-) Cheers,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  12:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tyler Durden
Hello Tyler Durden, you leaved a message in my talk page. i am new in wikipedia, so i am learning how to edit :) How did you added the smiley emoji in edit. Please tell me. --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the smiley is part of the image. And the whole welcome message I posted on your talk page is sent using the template: ' , through WP:Twinkle. Cheers,  Tyler Durden  (talk) ''' 07:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for letting me know :) i want to know are you from Hyderabad.? i lived so many years in hyderabad too. Are you inclined toward certain ideology left or right.??? --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, left & right are quite complex, contextual and vast ideologies. I'm mostly (but not in all contexts) somewhere between centre and left. You can call me a moderate-leftist. Cheers,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  08:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Hello Vamsee Krishna, dear vamsee, i didn't indulge in Edit war, i contributed to the article but username "Vanamonde93" deleting the reverting my edit. I added information on the article but he repeatedly deleting it.  Please see the history again. he is doing edit war with me. i didnt. I think you know him. is he is your fellow comrade? i am just asking i don't know dear. i am new in wikipedia, i am learning so bare with me :) --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(tps) do you understand why your previous accounts got blocked? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Hello Kautilya3, which account you are talking about.? i don't know when i discussed something with one comrade other comrade(with multiple account) jump into the discussion and try to dominate. This is Left wing fascism, try to suppress other views and hackled opinion with different views. Why Communist has taken over the Free open-source platform like wikipedia.? i think "Tyler Durden", "Kautilya3" and "Vanamonde93" are fellow comrade with Hinduphobia mindset, a distinct hatred for hindus. is i am correct.? is this allow in wikipedia.? --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have warned you on your userpage for the record, but please read WP:NPA and abide by it. Otherwise, you are likely to be blocked fairly quickly. Vanamonde (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you please warn too. he is personally attacking. WP:NPA. i am waiting for your reply --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. You asked him for help: he gave you some good advice, which you have decided to ignore. Please cut this out, and make constructive contributions instead. Vanamonde (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sir i want to make constructive contribution to Wikipedia and want to make it better. But when i add information to article citing source then some user revert it & delete it, try to have monopoly. Like Godhara incident page. reverting & deleting it destructive. i added the "target" & "Perpetrators". This is clear that all victims are Hindus and All accused are Muslim it was pre-planned conspiracy( Verdict my SC) i am wrong.? Please tell me then why i am not allowed to add this information.? i am worried Plz reply. your student --WikiBodhiVamsa (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that, like many others, you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. It is an encyclopaedia, which ONLY summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. Your additions were unsourced. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Inside the tribal raid
Krishna Mehta, the wife of the wazir-i-wazarat of Muzaffarabad, survived the tribal raid, and after several ordeals, got returned to India. She later became an MP from Kashmir. Some of what she says:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , This is quite ugly and bizarre! Why and by whom were they particularly ordered to carry out such gross violence against Hindus? Wasn't the tribal raid intended by the Pakistani political & military administration, merely to occupy Kashmir? Do you have any idea on who was involved in these orders, and for what they wanted so much revenge there? Is it the usual hatred during partition violence? And why did the tribesmen also attack Muslims in Muzaffarabad & Baramulla? ---  Tyler Durden  (talk)  09:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The "orders" would have been mostly from tribal leaders, but orchestrated by Khurshid Anwar and whoever was commanding/advising them from the Pakistani army. Revenge for whatever they heard about from Punjab, Poonch and Jammu would have been part of the motivation. But the raiders were also authorised to loot (money and women, considered war booty). She mentions some retreating raiders who filled their pockets with hands chopped off from victims, because they didn't have time to retrieve the rings/bangles etc. It was a free for all. Why burning happened is not clear. I guess it was their idea of how an invasion was supposed to work.
 * It is clear that the rebels/deserters were fully part of the "raid".
 * Why were Muslims too targeted? The official explanation is that the raiders said they couldn't distinguish between Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims. But Krishna Mehta also narrates an incident where the daughter of a Moulvi she was taking shelter from was targeted. The girl told them that she was Muslim, but it didn't make any difference. When the Moulvi himself went and pleaded, they released her, but rather reluctantly. "Rescuing Muslims" was the cover story. But really, the raiders weren't going to stick to it.
 * But all this was in Muzaffarabad though. Baramulla was quite different. There the tribal bosses began fighting with each other to decide who was going to be the Nawab of Srinagar. The tribesmen were then left to themselves, and a general free-for-all ensued. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

NPP
Hi,

I am not sure what your interests are on wikipedia, but would you please consider becoming New pages patrol/Reviewers? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, currently wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the right, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. I'm interested to contribute, but I see that there is some application process over there. Do I need to write an elaborate application for convincing that I'm worthy enough for this? In that case, sorry, I'm not interested. Please don't get me wrong, I'm just lazy for that kind of stuff. If there is nothing of that sort, do tell me, and I'll apply. Best regards,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * lol. no, all you have to say is that you want to contribute to wikipedia through this method. and "you should take look at my contribution history, and decide if I am worthy enough to handle the task."
 * I still insist you should read the tutorial before putting in the request. You should know what you are expected to do. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries 2
I understand that you are frustrated, but tone down those edit summaries a trifle. A lot of POV pushers will be removed by this community eventually, but that process becomes longer and more difficult if the folks who are sticking to policy are loosing their cool. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * +1, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

+2 From Gandhi and Nehru. They always practised and preached patience and tolerance towards everyone and everything in their life. Mahant Yogi Adityanath (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC) And please don't block me using something. I am someone who loves you. I am not Bodhivamsa. I only disturbed you. I did not disturb any others like him. And I have a lot of respect for comrades. You had good evidence for Bodhivamsa which I saw on others talkpage. You wasted all of it by including me in the complaint. Mahant Yogi Adityanath (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are in no position to lecture anybody, given the edits that you were making. You need to carefully read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Yes, that's a lot of pages, but I'm afraid there are several issues with what you were doing. Vanamonde (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and, sorry that I forgot to reply here. Will certainly keep that mind, thank you. Best,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  06:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Send welcome message
Idiot. I made 10 undeleted edits. Nobody welcomed me except the automatic XLinkBot because I made one copyright infringement in external links. You come and send me a welcome message soon. Signature: Marla Durden (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"This edit has been prevented because unregistered and new editors can not modify other editors' userpages, or you attempted to add or remove unlocked userpage when you are not the owner of the userpage. If you want to contact this editor, you may do so at the editor's talk page. Requests for changes can be made there as well. If this is your userpage, please log in to edit your userpage." So I am contacting you on your talk page. Give me your log in. ^_^ Signature: Marla Durden (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Marla. You were apparently unable to edit Tyler Durden's userpage, as is proper — why should you modify another user's userpage? Asking Tyler Durden for his "login" is inappropriate, as you are by no means allowed to log into somebody else's account, even if you are their sister as you state here. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Tyler, from the edit summary it looks like your sister edited your user page using your account, see this diff. Wikipedia policy prohibits sharing accounts, so please make sure you change your password as soon as possible and keep your account secure, especially if you are interested in extended permissions. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * & : Yes, she is my sister. She came to WP yesterday itself just like that, after asking me to teach how to edit. She wanted to make a few edits on some local topics, but she was also behaving a bit childish with me. She didn't have a proper idea about the ways of Wiki. And its true that she merely edited my user page from my PC, I had to allow her after she insisted me. Anyways, she doesn't have my password, and I can assure that nothing of this sort will happen ever again, from my side or her side. I hope, this time it won't get any further serious.


 * : See.  - And again, brilliant edit summaries, darling! So unrevealing. Just attracted warnings from two new admins on my talk page. Keep it up. —  Tyler Durden   (talk)  06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I alone am responsible for this. Sorry for creating a lot of trouble and bothering many people. I promise to be careful from now onwards and not do anything inappropriate. Besides I will only make small changes in small pages. Thank you all for your time. Tyler Durden, thanks a lot for your kind compliments. I am honored. Signature: Marla Durden (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir
Karan Singh says :

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * : Well, I wouldn't blame Sheikh for not making peace with the Dogras. He couldn't. Jammu agitation's rallying cry of outright "Ek Vidhan, Ek Nishan, Ek Pradhan" ("one constitution, one flag and one premier") was too hard to deal with from Kashmiri-perspective.
 * There is no such state called Kashmir - Its true that the issue was never dealt from the angle of Jammu vs Kashmir, as Balaj Puri also states in his article. But the Kashmiris have been mainly & largely demanding to liberate the state called Kashmir.
 * Incidentally I wonder why Karan Singh talks nothing about Jammu massacres when he says, "Had Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah been able to come to an agreement, the whole history of the sub-continent would have been different." and states that the "glue that had held the state together disappeared with the abolishing of Dogra rule." (which in Balaj Puri's words: "loyalty to the Maharaja was a common link between Hindu and Muslim leaders of Jammu on the issue of accession and hostility to Kashmiri leaders.") No comments. Cheers,  Tyler Durden  (talk)  09:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there any evidence that Kashmiris have been demanding a "state called Kashmir"? (I am ignoring the SOAPBOX comments.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for the purpose of trolling and deception. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to review this unblock request because I've blocked two of your socks; that said, none of what you say above is remotely believable, especially after the sanctimonious prattle after the sock account was blocked. That said, given the CU placement of a tag on this and your socks, I think this should be treated like a CU block. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to review it either, but you seem to think Checkuser only investigates people's IPs; no, CU's have better tools than that. Compare the discussion on my page, where the CheckUser who investigated you (User:Bbb23) explains briefly. But you're saying you haven't socked at all, is that right? Your sister edited independently of you, except for the time you let her edit from your account, and you think she probably created the sock Mahant Yogi Adityanath, as a "prank"? Have I understood you? Bishonen &#124; talk 10:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC).
 * ,, after looking at all the evidence, it is fairly clear to me that TylerDurden is telling the truth. Marla Durden has always been clear that she was his sister, e.g., in this edit she did using TD's account. (MYA) I was not sure about. But now that TD has admitted that it was likely to have been his sister playing a prank, it fits all other information I have. At the same time that this was going on, I was having an email conversation with TD, prodding him to file the SPI that he promised on my talk page . In the email exchange, TD did think it was another sock of . I did too. The exchanges that happened between them  also indicate the same.
 * No doubt the sister's prank was terrible, but I am not sure how much we can hold TD responsible for it. Both of you seem to think that TD was playing the prank against himself. Nothing in TD's extensive edit record indicates that he is here to play games like that. He has been editing productively and seriously, doing significant research into scholarly sources etc. In fact, just a few days ago, I congratulated him for learning the ways of Wikipedia quite effectively and becoming a productive editor. I think he genuinely deserves your consideration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment- I support unblock of Tyler, if he doesn't share his computer with others. There are far worse editors who gets multiple second chance and continue to disrupt till they get topic banned. However after unblock, Checkusers should keep watch on him. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  06:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also support the unblock of TylerDurden, or, at the very least, shortening it. I gave my reasons here.VR talk  06:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions
Tyler, please answer the following questions: If you do not wish to answer these questions publicly, you can e-mail me the answers, although I may share those answers with other CheckUsers or administrators within the bounds of policy. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) What device(s) do you use to edit Wikipedia, e.g., PCs, mobiles, tablets, etc.?
 * 2) Where do you edit from? Not the address, city, or country, but the kind(s) of locations(s), e.g., home, library, school, other kinds of public places?
 * 3) If you edit from someplace other than home, do you use your own device or do you use the place's device? For example, if you edit from a library, do you connect using your own mobile, tablet, whatever, or do you use the library's computer?
 * 4) The same three questions above but for your sister.
 * Vamsee (sorry, I didn't notice your real name on your userpage), I received your e-mail. Please give me a little time to figure out how best to proceed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Vamsee, who is ?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to other administrators. Triggered partly by my question about Saffron Army, Vamsee wrote me a second e-mail. He says he doesn't know who Saffron Army is but says it could have been created by anyone because of his student living arrangements during the regular school term. He also said that he no longer wishes to be unblocked ("kindly block me forever, as is the situation now"). He said he was willing to post parts of his e-mail on this page but didn't "want to create another scene there, wasting other's valuable time further". Vamsee, I don't think it's necessary for you to copy your e-mail here, but it would be more straightforward if you removed the unblock request template. You can keep your original statements in the request, but it would make it clear that you do not wish to be unblocked.
 * I want to make a few more comments about Vamsee's block as I think it would be useful if he should ever change his mind and wish to edit again. I've consulted privately with two other administrators. Although we don't agree on every point, we do agree that Vamsee should not be unblocked and that he should not be able to request an unblock before six months from today. At that time, Vamseee would have to convince administrators that he can control access to his devices from his sister and others, and that he will always keep his Wikipedia password secret from everyone, including his sister. Finally, although I was not the blocking administrator and this is not ostensibly a CU block, I should be consulted before any unblocking occurs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Afd nomination
I saw your Afd nomination of 2017 Pratapgarh lynching and also voted there. While the article is clear violation of few policies, I am not sure if the article creator is here to edit articles neutrally and he even tagged your nomination as "confirmed sockpuppet", I have removed the striking because you were not in violation nor you are a sock(but a master). I have not checked all edits of this editor but nominated another similar article: 2017 Alwar mob lynching. Capitals00 (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)
Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution
In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:
 * (a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
 * (b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.


 * Apply at: Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program#Apply for support
 * Last date for submitting applications is 11th February 2018, 11:59 IST.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest
In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:


 * Sign up at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Participants
 * List of the articles can be referred at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics
 * Submit/report your articles/contributions at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/project-tiger-2018-en
 * For more details, rules, FAQ etc. kindly refer: Project Tiger Writing Contest

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

WikiProject India
 WikiProject India

'Namaste'', Tyler Durden. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.'''  Subscribe

Newsletter discussion

Contribute

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Archive

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been pruned from the WikiProject India/Members list.
Hi Tyler Durden! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject India/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject India/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked
Your account has been unblocked following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee. –xenotalk 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)