Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1971/Archive 5
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Edit
@My Lord: Can you please explain why you removed this sourced edit? It expands on the tense bilateral relations which followed shortly after the war, so your claim definitely does not hold true especially with the text preceding it. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You used POV wording that Indian liberators "soon became unpopular" in Bangladesh because of some trivial events, and whole para depending on a book about Sri Lanka. That's not enough and content is
- "Unpopular" is the exact term that the source used. If you have an alternative term, you can suggest it but it should not deviate from the actual source. You haven't explained why you removed content that was sourced, so I'm going to wait and give you another opportunity. Please note Wikipedia doesn't allow censoring reliably-sourced content based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In this case, you deliberately removed text from a section discussing the Indo-Bangla bilateral relationship in context of the war. Mar4d (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help. My Lord (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you think WP:BRD and stop blanking sourced content. Just screaming POV without basis isn't going to help. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You don't understand what is a WP:UNDUE. You seem to be missing the link between events that if Indians became unpopular, why they have a high rating today? We can't present content in Wikipedia voice that would raise doubts, and this source is clearly not clarifying. My Lord (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am definitely following BRD here on the talk, however you haven't complied. Your first edit was a blanket removal with no discussion whatsoever. This is especially contentious when the removal concerns sourced content. And I am not sure what you mean above. The content is about the disagreements and at times cold bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh shortly after the war ended, which has been covered in great depth. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that's why you restored your edit[1] without gaining any consensus. That's not BRD. Next paragraph talks about the good reception of India among Bangladeshis, citing pewforum if you have seen. We will have to fulfill the gap, that what made Bangladeshis like Indian so much if they disliked them in 1974.. Though the source (Silva) cites no convincing sources for his information or any good evidence. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva is corroborating what Gill and numerous other sources explore on this relationship. I am not sure why you bring up the PEW survey, since I did not remove it. If you want to bring sources on the table discussing how the relationship evolved, you can do so. Though we simply can't leave out the fact that India lost much goodwill, and most of it had to do with political failures. This is exactly what the source explains. Please let me know what you would like to propose and perhaps we can work around it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Options are that we should be fine with removal, or we need multiple reliable sources that would emphasise the downfall, or we need sources to describe how India's reception evolved in Bangladesh if it was so bad in 1974. My Lord (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva is corroborating what Gill and numerous other sources explore on this relationship. I am not sure why you bring up the PEW survey, since I did not remove it. If you want to bring sources on the table discussing how the relationship evolved, you can do so. Though we simply can't leave out the fact that India lost much goodwill, and most of it had to do with political failures. This is exactly what the source explains. Please let me know what you would like to propose and perhaps we can work around it. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that's why you restored your edit[1] without gaining any consensus. That's not BRD. Next paragraph talks about the good reception of India among Bangladeshis, citing pewforum if you have seen. We will have to fulfill the gap, that what made Bangladeshis like Indian so much if they disliked them in 1974.. Though the source (Silva) cites no convincing sources for his information or any good evidence. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am definitely following BRD here on the talk, however you haven't complied. Your first edit was a blanket removal with no discussion whatsoever. This is especially contentious when the removal concerns sourced content. And I am not sure what you mean above. The content is about the disagreements and at times cold bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh shortly after the war ended, which has been covered in great depth. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- You don't understand what is a
- If you think
- That's clear
- "Unpopular" is the exact term that the source used. If you have an alternative term, you can suggest it but it should not deviate from the actual source. You haven't explained why you removed content that was sourced, so I'm going to wait and give you another opportunity. Please note Wikipedia doesn't allow censoring reliably-sourced content based on
@My Lord you havent yet explained what is the exact problem that you have with Mar4d's edit? You made a blanket revert without adequately explaining it and are now shooting in the dark. Please be specific.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 08:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- See
- MBL, excellent contribution to the discussion at hand, dare I say.—TripWire________ʞlɐʇ 09:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mar4d has provided a good source [2], the author is an eminent historian and its due because its covered in multiple reliable sources. Another source, of a book published by Routledge in 2012: [3]. M A A Z T A L K 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And for one, the PEW source (which also mentions the cold bilateral relations) is a primary source whereas the above Routledge source is a secondary source by an academic, so it takes precedence per WP:HISTRS, being an eminent historian. My Lord's claim therefore about the "change in attitude" stands invalid as it is, as the above similarly mentions Bangladesh having been wary of India as a regional hegemon. Mar4d (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hand-waving publisher and author doesn't means you have fulfilled
- Indeed, there are reliable sources saying the exact opposite is the case.
[4] MBlaze Lightning talk 17:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)In the case of Bangladesh and its relations with India, the two states embarked after 1971 on a relationship whereby India was the hegemonic power and sought to maximize its influence and power in Dacca. Relations between Delhi and Islamabad however remained trapped in the transient dynamic of Lockean and Hobbesian cultures that at its zenith reached a new height of Hobbesian danger in May 1998. After the founding of Bangladesh, relations between Delhi and the newly established Bangladesh underwent a qualitative change from pre-1971 relations. In stark contrast however, relations with Pakistan remained tense and mutually antagonistic.
- Indeed, there are reliable sources saying the exact opposite is the case.
- Hand-waving publisher and author doesn't means you have fulfilled
- And for one, the PEW source (which also mentions the cold bilateral relations) is a primary source whereas the above Routledge source is a secondary source by an academic, so it takes precedence per
- Are you folks playing a game of hide and seek here? No one replies to Mar4d and Ma'azs legitimate comments for a week and then when the content gets restored for irresponsiveness then the whole junta shows up to play the revert game!
- And to you MBL, As for your "quite the contrary" content is concerned, the source you provided does not exactly say what you are trying to purport in your comment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it says explicitly that the relations between India and Bangladesh "underwent a qualitative change from pre-1971 relations. In stark contrast however, relations with Pakistan remained tense and mutually antagonistic." Perhaps a
- MBlaze Lightning‘s above quote actually does not support his argument at all. All it says is that India was exercising hegemonic influence over Bangladesh and it does not say anything contradictory to Silva about the Bangladeshi population's opinion. Another scholarly source validates it and adds that Bangladeshi people think India has hegemonic influence in the region and forces its agenda on its neighbours and that’s why it flows into the negative views about India which bubbled to the surface in 1974. samee converse 08:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's source misrepresentation because it also tells that India and Bangladesh relations underwent a "qualitative change" post-1971, in direct contradiction to the claims of Silva that Indians "soon became unpopular" and so on. If contradiction exists then we shouldn't be adding the information unless its too common but that's really not a case in this situation. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why we are dedicating nearly a paragraph to Silva. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, how he is that relevant or has expertise in 1971 Indo-Pakistan war? Raymond3023 (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- When digging a little deeper, it becomes clear that the relations between India and Bangladesh were good post-1971 until 1975, contrary to the claims made by Silva.[5][6][7]
- There are other reasons for rejecting Silva source as well, namely because it doesn't meet the criterion set forth in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and hence it's not a reliable source for the information in question. Silva is basically making outrageous claims without backing them up. MBlaze Lightning talk 12:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Silva—a historian, thus WP:CONTEXTMATTERS again, it has nothing to do with your objection. The paragraph is about Bangladeshi perceptions about India. Also the sources you have brought up provide no support for your propositions. samee converse 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to tell why. Why you can't prove that he is an expert on Bangladesh or this war? Why we can't find multiple sources for the information? Why sources say that India-Bangladesh relationships were very cordial at least until 1975, which is contradictory to Silva. Read Capitals00 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You need to tell why. Why you can't prove that he is an expert on Bangladesh or this war? Why we can't find multiple sources for the information? Why sources say that India-Bangladesh relationships were very cordial at least until 1975, which is contradictory to Silva. Read
- You are wrong about Silva not being expert on Bangladesh or war and Wikipedia does not run on your wishful thinking so we will not keep omitting it. It is a scholarly source by all standards and meets all the policies on sourcing so we will keep including it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- They contradict everything that Silva personally believes, and since he is not an expert in Bangladesh, let alone the war itself, and his chapter is too small, we can continue omitting it.
- Silva—a historian, thus
- You folks are clearly coatracking the edit in question. The edit is not about government to government relations, it’s about people to people relations. Relations at the government level ought to be good as Mujeeb being at the helm of affairs got all of his support from India and that’s where he started his campaign being in exile so nobody is contradicting here that government level relations might have been cordial. Please read the edit again, it’s all about India’s popularity among common Bangladeshis but the source provided by MBL is about government to government relations and at that it is ambiguous as well, as it says that relations between India and Bangladesh saw qualitative change from their pre-1971 relations. First of all there was no Bangladesh pre-1971, it was East Pakistan and part of Pakistan, secondly qualitative change could mean other way around as well since if we assume that the source is talking about India ‘s relations with Mujeeb's exiled government then the relations were very cordial pre-1971 and qualitative change here could mean that they took a downturn. McLeod does not know what he is talking about, he must have been drunk in his study room when he wrote this because he seems to be all over the place. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I find unconvincing the arguments against using de Silva as a source, and the arguments against expanding by a few sentences the paragraph in the "Aftermath" section about the post-war cooling of Bangladeshis' feelings towards India. No one has objected to what was already there:
Colonel John Gill of National Defense University remarks that, while India achieved a military victory, it was not able to reap the political fruits it might have hoped for in Bangladesh. After a brief 'honeymoon' phase between India and Bangladesh, their relationship began to sour. India's relations with Bangladesh have remained frequently problematic and tense.
- General histories of Bangladesh commonly remark on the post-war cooling:
[In a section on the problems of post-war reconstruction] In the international arena, the Soviets made themselves too conspicuous and the Indians stayed on too long in the eyes of many Bangladeshis (reviving the 1946 fear of Indian—-that is, Hindu—domination). (Baxter (2002) Government and Politics in South Asia p. 269)
The Bangladesh army ... felt increasingly unhappy. Their resentment originated in the final days of the war of 1971. According to them, the Indian army had robbed the Bangladeshi fighters of the glory of liberating Bangladesh, walking in when the freedom fighters had already finished the job, and had taken away to India all sophisticated weaponry and vehicles captured from the Pakistanis ... they also felt bitter about Mujib's closeness to India, which, they thought, undermined to sovereignty of Bangladesh. By 1973 many in the army were both anti-Indian and anti-Mujib. (van Schendel (2009) A History of Bangladesh p. 182)
Mujib had been unable to translate his considerable attributes and skills into a convincing, institutionalised form of political leadership, there were high levels of corruption and cronyism within the administration and widespread concerns that he was allowing India to interfere in Bangladesh's domestic affairs existed. (Lewis (2011) Bangladesh Politics, Economy and Civil Society p. 81)
- Is there a rephrasing of Mar4d's expansion, or a mix of sources for it, that opponents would find acceptable? The fragment "the political aspects of India's intervention were a dismal failure", attributed to de Silva, is a bit over the top - it goes beyond the academic consensus. Would removal of that fragment, or its replacement by a more measured assessment, help resolve this dispute? --Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Worldbruce: I am open to alternative proposals, as long as it sticks to the sources and isn't whitewashing the solid details. That being said, the text clearly needs to explain why the military intervention did not entirely translate into political goodwill. Mar4d (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Other sentences describe the aftermath correctly, that's why I made no objection to what was already there. Silva is not an expert and his exceptional claims are not supported by other sources, in fact contradicted by others. Writing a few POV sentences by relying on him is clearly over the top. Cutting some part of Silva's claims and adding the sources provided by Mblaze Lightning would be fine for now. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Silva’s claims are supported by all the references posted by Worldbruce, the source presented by MBL is already rejected by me and I listed the reasons for that in one of my earlier comments. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Revert of edits by Turbocop
Apparently some of the editors here think that well sourced edits by banned socks should be restored e.g. see Khalistan movement history diff diff diff diff . The edits here [9] are also reliably sourced and hence I have reverted the same. we can't selectively revert and restore content based on our personal liking. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- @WP:POINT-y argument. The revert on Khalistan movement has to do nothing with this unrelated subject which were discussed on talk page. If the edits here are so "reliably sourced" then consider producing the quotes from the snippets from these books that have no preview unavailable for me (and probably others). If you can't then self-revert yourself right now. Orientls (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- (WP:EVASION, and any editor can reinstate them and take responsibility for those edits. Either or both of these can be
selective
. It depends on our judgement. - In my view, most of the edits made by Turbocop were in the positive direction, and there should be little need to revert them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- TUrbocop certainly had a dodgy history in this subject, see Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War#Edits from TurboCop.
- DBigXray's contributions show he is certainly editing around even after evidently reading the message here.[10] Now I would be within my rights to revert WP:AGF to see if DBigXray really understands what really constitutes "reliably sourced". Though Orientls (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Guys I have no special love for Turbocop. I think we have to move sensibly here. Kautilya3 makes a valid point. We should decide what to do with his offline sources and act accordingly. If it is dodgy then it is dodgy, just becuase it supports someone POV does not mean dodgy edits should be restored. Meanwhile I am adding [need quotation to verify] tags in the article, until this is sorted.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no issue of love or non-love. It is merely a question of whether we agree with the edits. No policy-based reason needs to be offered to do a BANREVERT. If it is reinstated, the discussion then happens normally between the current editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray: We can't leave it like that. This is a contentious topic. I have reverted you since this all started with your misrepresentation of the policy and now this failure to get the point. If you or anyone is really interested, they can reinsert it with quotation and use a more neutral language than "Pakistani Army resisted fiercely". Orientls (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Orientls there is no consensus to remove his edits. Please self revert. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Guys I have no special love for Turbocop. I think we have to move sensibly here. Kautilya3 makes a valid point. We should decide what to do with his offline sources and act accordingly. If it is dodgy then it is dodgy, just becuase it supports someone POV does not mean dodgy edits should be restored. Meanwhile I am adding [need quotation to verify] tags in the article, until this is sorted.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- (
- Where is consensus to add it? You said "edits here [11] are also reliably sourced", then show us how it supported by the sources. This is the 3rd time you are being asked the same question. Orientls (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Schendel p.170 has this paragraph:
The Indian armed forces, and the freedom fighters who battled alongside them, had all the advantages. Marching into the delta from every direction, they were better armed than the Pakistanis, had control of the air and the sea and were welcomed as liberators by most of the local population. Still, the invasion was no walkover: the Pakistanis put up fierce resistance and there were many casualties. The final days of the war also saw a last assault on leading Bengali intellectuals. Pro-Pakistan Al-Badr militia rounded up writers, professors, artists, doctors and other professionals in Dhaka, blindfolded them and butchered them. A couple of days later, on 16 December, the Pakistani administration crumbled, and the army was forced to surrender.[16] The war was over, and an independent state had come into being.
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not sure if this requires inclusion after replacing the summary of Manekshaw's quotes. Maybe some other paragraph along with "and suffered many casualties"? Orientls (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Manekshaw's direct quote is still there in the article. There was absolutely no need to write the same thing in both indirect and direct quote. That removal was entirely appropriate. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am not sure if this requires inclusion after replacing the summary of Manekshaw's quotes. Maybe some other paragraph along with "and suffered many casualties"? Orientls (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- If anyone wants a quote from an offline source in order to evaluate whether or not it supports the content, insert {{
- Kautilya3: It seems that these edits are repeating same things already included in the article by using different words. I viewed that the book has provided context rather than a single sentence. Why you are pointing a half sentence without providing any context? These things have been already written through the quote of Manekshaw.
- Same is the issue with your other restoration. On Aftermath section, these edits seem undue as the section already included that "Colonel John Gill of National Defense University, US, remarks that, while India achieved a military victory, it was not able to reap the political fruits it might have hoped for in Bangladesh. After a brief 'honeymoon' phase between India and Bangladesh, their relationship began to sour. India's relations with Bangladesh have remained frequently problematic and tense."
- Why we are repeating it with different sources? We still yet to find quotations for other two sources. In sentences like "Many were concerned that Mujib was permitting Indian intereference", it is unclear who these "many" are. We can't be sure if it is WP:DUEor not depending on who those "many" were. Where is the link or ISBN for "Government and politics in South Asia" 5th edition? We really need to confirm these claims before bringing them to main page. But again, this has been already covered in the article, so why there should be repetition of the information?
- Aside this, can anyone check if " A 2014 Pew Research Center opinion poll in Bangladesh found that India was perceived as the greatest threat to Bangladesh", is really supported by the source? I don't find mention of a "greatest threat" in the provided source. Orientls (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- If there is any duplication, you are welcome to delete it and say so in the edit summary.
- Schendel's book covered the whole war in one paragraph. There is no more "context" to the statement and the other "half sentence" is talking about Indian casualties. This is much more authentic than Manekshaw's rumblings, whose credibility is pretty low. War heroes don't make great sources. I just deleted another war hero's nonsensical statement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019
![]() | This Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- See also
- Mitro Bahini order of battle
- Pakistan Army order of battle, December 1971
- Evolution of Pakistan Eastern Command plan
- Military plans of the Bangladesh Liberation War
- Timeline of the Bangladesh Liberation War
- Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts
-- 58.182.172.95 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Please edit the casualties correctly
It says that Pakistani Army suffered only 2,200+ deaths which is wrong as it's what they suffered in the eastern front. Indian casualties on eastern front were just over 1,200 deaths. Actually, Pakistani army suffered 8,000 military deaths and 12,000 wounded and 90,000+ captured on eastern and western fronts combined. Please re-edit the casualties on the main summary. Hard654 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Libaration War of Bangladesh 1971
In 1971 which war was held in subcontinent that not Indo-Pakistani War at all. It was the glorious libaration war of Bangladeshi Freedom-Fighter against Pakistani invading forces. Indian force join with Bangladeshi Freedom Fighter at end of the war. So it is a completely false and distorted history that the war of 9 was between Pakistan and India. Learn the right truth and go with the truth. Md. Mahabubur Rahman Razib (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020
![]() | This Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to edit a date. Sardaraliabbas572 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Unreliable and inauthentic sources
"The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance.[120]:107 The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was blown out of the subcontinent's skies within the first week of the war.[120]:107 Those PAF aircraft that survived took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer a fight.[123]"
This quote was copy pasted from a Russian blog with dubious authenticity. This needs to be changed to a proper citation or deleted. It is well established that Indian Air force did not have air superiority in West Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- It would be worth seeing what is said about the PAF and air operations in:
- ISBN 978-0-19-577948-6.
- Praval, K. C. (1987). Indian Army After Independence. Lancer. ISBN 9788170620143.
- Krishna, Ashok (1998). India's Armed Forces: Fifty Years of War and Peace. Lancer. ISBN 978-1-897829-47-9.
- Cloughley, Brian (2006) [First published 2000]. A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-547334-6.
- ISBN 978-0-8147-1633-5.
- Nawaz, Shuja (2008). Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-547660-6.
- What other suggestions of
According to declassified CIA records, page 13, [1] It states that "Pakistan's military capabilities remained largely in tact after the conflict." This is a much more reliable and authoritative source then a random Russian blog. Also, I could not find any other authoritative source for PAF "hiding" in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Although Pakistan's military capabilities remained largely intact following the conflict, the countries leaders recognize that their armed forces are no match for India's
, only this full sentence has a logical meaning. Also this sentence isn't portraying the immediate situation after the war.With nearly one-third of its army in captivity, clearly established India's military and political dominance of the subcontinent
,[2] this was the condition immediate after the war. The declassified documents of CIA is not declassified in true sense,All PIA aircraft are out of service and parked in Tehran or Jidda.
[3] the upper sentence of this is still classified, may be to shelter PAF's shelter in Iran, many sentence of related Pakstan's situation during war were still classified in CIA's report.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
No one is denying that the air force in East Pakistan surrendered, but the quote from the Russian blog saying that entire air force, especially in west Pakistan, surrendered. This is not true and unless we have different meaning for "largely intact following the conflict" this clearly shows that PAF was not "blown out of the sky and hiding in Iran" India never established air superiority in West Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
"Pakistan lost half its navy, a quarter of its air force, and a third of its army.[114] " in the article itself it says a quarter of the air force. Can mods please delete the ridiculous claims by that Russian blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00875R001100030003-0.pdf
- ^ "India: Easy Victory, Uneasy Peace". Time. 27 December 1971.
- ^ "CIA" (PDF).
Analyzing the role of media in the 1971 war
Media is the strongest pillar of every state due to its strong influence on the masses. It tends to shape, reshape and mold the public opinion and perception towards any ongoing matter. Major General Asif Ghafoor ex- DG ISPR said in a press conference that if Pakistani media had been independent, the country might not have separated. At the time of the 1971 war, policies and plans were given by the Indian government to create chaos for Pakistan. International media also put its part by reporting propaganda news against West Pakistan and Pakistan was cut into two halves and gave birth to an isolated state of Bangladesh. The reason behind the separation of Pakistan was the involvement of a third party. Indian Media and Mukti Bahini fought the war along with the Bengali people and supported their every step towards the inception of war.
At the time of war or conflict, the role of media becomes essential. But during the conflict of 1971 Pakistani media was under the control of the state. No news regarding the killings of non- Bengalis by Mukti Bahini were not broadcasted. Print media and Pakistan Television were completely blackout by the Government in West Pakistan excluding the permitted content. Many journalists were arrested by Pakistani armed forces during operation searchlight and that stopped the process of first-hand reporting. In a press conference Major General Asif Ghafoor ex- DG ISPR admitted that Pakistani media has changed and is guiding the army. Pakistani authorities in East Pakistan were unaware of the sensitivity of preventing the first-hand reporting which give chance to Indian media to manipulate the facts.
Media has always been the part of propaganda. Superpowers like the United States and China used media as a tool of propaganda. In 1971 Indian media have also used media for their interest. Indian and the media reported every situation according to their interest which pushed the anger of Bengali people. Indian Government and RAW used all the tactics to create propaganda against Pakistan. They established the Radio station “Free Bengal Betal Kendra” just to manipulate the fact and situation at that time. Their objective was to destabilize Pakistan regardless of the proof.
International media have to play a vital role during the coverage of any conflict or war. International media played an immoral and unethical role during the war of 1971. Un-Authentication of news and biased reporting was done by international media at that time. One of the serious allegations on International media is the total number of Bengali killed during the war of 1971. International media without the verification reported the number of 3 million killings of Bengalis whereas in a report named, “The missing millions” William Drummond highlighted that “My finding built-in various tours to Bangladesh and broad discussion with many individuals at the village level as well as in the government, is that the three million death figure is an exaggeration so gross to be absurd”. International media violated the ethics of journalism when they printed the pictures of Jessore massacre victims, by quoting it the deadly act of Pakistan armed forces. New York Times and Washington Post dishonored all the principles of professionalism. There are several stories that international media didn’t verify it and blamed Pakistan authorities for the unrest situation in East Pakistan.
It is important to understand the role and existence of media at the time of war. As media have the power to stabilize and calm the situation among people. Unlike, media played a negative part at the time of the 1971 war either international media or National media and the fumes of war destroyed Pakistan. Indian government with the support of Mukti Bahini used all the tactics of information disorder and propaganda to manipulate the situation and facts which lead to the separation of East Pakistan. The media of West Pakistan used discursive strategies to present a soft and winning image of West Pakistan against Bengalis and Mukti Bahini who were directly connected with the Indian government and officials. Hence, the war of 1971 proved that media could be a distractive weapon and a positive tool if there is no involvement of government. Freedom of media and absolute freedom of media is still a conflicting subject all around the world. For the sake of authentic, credible, and factual news, media should work as an unbiased tool and portrays the exact and precise information having statistical figures, accurate details to the audience.
Muhammad Asim Siddiqi is a broadcast journalist based in Islamabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammadAsimSiddiqi (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Pakistan casualties
I have reverted this change. Firstly it makes no sense, the edit summary says Old sources contained no mention. User generated content
. What "user generated content"? The references cited were.
- Leonard, Thomas M. (2006). Encyclopedia of the developing world, Volume 1. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-97662-6.
- The Encyclopedia of 20th Century Air Warfare, edited by Chris Bishop (Amber publishing 1997, republished 2004 pages 384–387 ISBN 1-904687-26-1
Neither of those are user generated. They were replaced by this reference, with the number of Pakistanis killed being changed from 25,000 to 2698. This figure is achieved by adding the Bengali front total of 1293 to the Western front total of 1405. However, and it's a big however, even if you want to argue that website is reliable (and its reliability should be regarded as questionable at best) using that total ignores the fact that it says the Bengali front figure cannot be further from the truth as it is a fact that the entire 100,000 Pakistani army on the Bengali front, consisting primarily of the 9th, the 14th, and the 36th infantry divisions, was completed destroyed
and the Western front figure are also lower than the actual losses of the Pakistani army
. FDW777 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
User: FDW777 after going through the source, it does include the figures. But indians self admitted of around 7500 pakistani casualities and around 7000 of theirs according to the source
9000 still seems an over exaggerated figure and the indian casualties are also kept very low when the indian army self admitted Truthwins018 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- There can always be a case made for including more figures, to give a range for example. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I would go ahead with giving a range for the pakistani casualties. It would be appreciated if you can cite some references so that i can create a range for indian and pakistani casualties. Pakistani casualties now are overly exaggerated, even more than the indian claimsTruthwins018 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Battles at the Western front
I noticed there's little to no information on these battles (and the Western front in general compared to the East):
These could have separate articles dedicated to them, and the approximate areas captured could be added to the infobox.
SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
infobox caption
The caption to the infobox is crowded, and not easy to read aggravated by use of small font. The Manual of Style for captions says under Succintness "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting", it also says " text of captions should not be specially formatted...except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text" which counts against small font.
I suggest the caption contains just what it is (signing of the surrender), name the signer and two individuals bookending him, and at most a general description of the onlookers (eg "in presence of senior Indian officers").
The caption where the image is used on Pakistani Instrument of Surrender is much more effective, though not necessarily the final say on the matter: "Lt Gen A A K Niazi signing the Instrument of Surrender under the gaze of Lt Gen J S Aurora (left), General Commander of the Indian and Bangladeshi Forces". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Addition of unsourced claims
@Aman.kumar.goel:, You cannot add unsourced figures to the infobox. If you have a source for 93,000 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed.
SpicyBiryani (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Infobox does not require sources. It is sourced in the article. You can easily find more sources. [12][13] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @SpicyBiryani: 93,000 POWs is sourced. The 90,368 figure is the one that is unsourced. The source cited is:
- ISBN 9780816607204.
... continuing deadlock over the release of some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children, captured in East Pakistan (the few hundred prisoners captured by each side on the Western front 'were exchanged on December 1, 1972).
- @SpicyBiryani: 93,000 POWs is sourced. The 90,368 figure is the one that is unsourced. The source cited is:
- Many other reliable academic sources support the 93,000 total, although Bose disputes the ratio of military to civilian prisoners, and several authors assume all the POWs were soldiers, which is sloppy.
- ISBN 9780231701648.
According to Gen. Niazi: "The strength of the Pakistani Army was 34,000 troops; Rangers, scouts, militia and civil police came to 11,000, thus the grand total came to 45,000. If we include naval and air force detachments and all those in uniform and entitled to free rations, e.g., HQ MLA, depots, training institutes, workshops, factories, nurses and lady doctors, non-combatants like barbers, cooks, shoemakers, and sweepers, even then the total comes to 55,000 ... The remaining were civilian officials, civilian staff and women and children." So it appears that while the total figure in Indian custody is about right, to state that '93,000 soldiers' were taken prisoner is wrong.
- ISBN 9780674731295.
India took around 93,000 prisoners of war
- ISBN 9780415580618.
The surrender of 93,000 of their elite troops on 16 December 1971, led to complete humiliation of Pakistan.
- ISBN 9780674052895.
But the surrender of 93,000 soldiers without a whimper on December 16, 1971, highlighted the magnitude of the defeat suffered by the Pakistani Army at the hands of its primary rival.
- ISBN 978-0-19023-5 18-5.
On 16 December Islamabad was forced to sign a humiliating ceasefire under which terms India held prisoner the 93,000 soldiers captured in the net around Dhaka.
- Braithwaite, John; ISBN 9781760461898.
India took this West Pakistan territory as damages after holding 93,000 POWs until 1973.
- If you have a source for 90,368 POWs being captured, then cite it. Otherwise, it will be removed. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Many other reliable academic sources support the 93,000 total, although Bose disputes the ratio of military to civilian prisoners, and several authors assume all the POWs were soldiers, which is sloppy.
- Well, to name a few:
- Parker, Newton B.; Cuter, Melissa J.; Cover, William W.; Conn, Cary Corwin; Nyrop, Richard F. (1975). Pakistan: A country study. p. 377.
more than 90,000 prisoners and civilian internees had been taken by India.
- Nyrop, Richard F. (1974). Area Handbook for Pakistan. p. 377.
A total of more than 90,000 prisoners and civilian internees had been taken by India. Of these, about 75,000 were military prisoners of war.
- Sidney Levie, Howard (1998). Levie on the Law of War. p. 378.
In 1974, India agreed to repatriate the more than 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war whom they still detained, despite the fact that there had long since been a cessation of active hostilities between the two countries.
- Sajjad Malik, Muhammad (2019). Strategic Studies Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring 2019). Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. p. 62.
90,000 soldiers were made Prisoner of War (PoW) by India.
- Parker, Newton B.; Cuter, Melissa J.; Cover, William W.; Conn, Cary Corwin; Nyrop, Richard F. (1975). Pakistan: A country study. p. 377.
- Not to mention, the source already present in the article itself:
- Cloughley, Brian (2016). A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc. ISBN 9781631440397. Retrieved 8 August 2017.
- Cloughley, Brian (2016). A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.
- Well, to name a few:
- None of these state either 90,368 or 93,000 but "over 90,000," which is a closer approximation to 90,368 than 93,000, but I don't want to indulge in WP:SYNTHESIS too much. And as you've pointed out, most sources supporting the 93,000 figure have questionable accuracy since they assume all POWs were civillians. The article already has a table of the number of POWs, so either that figure or a range like "90,000+ captured," could be used. SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- I also found a source for 90,368 exactly:
- Adve, N., & Saxena, S. (2007). Maoist Attack in Jharkand. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(44), p.122. Retrieved February 24, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40276728
- SpicyBiryani (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JSTOR 40276728. Adve and Saxena wrote one of the other letters in the section.
- It is not a reliable source for several reasons. It's a letter to the editor, rather than a peer reviewed article, and although the writer is named, it isn't clear that they have any relevant expertise. Jha writes "The Hameedur Rahman Committee report instituted by Pakistan puts the break-up of Pakistani POWS as follows ..." The correct name is Commission, not Committee, but in any case the only version of that report ever leaked does not contain those numbers. What does contain those numbers, and the same "Committee" mistake, is the Wikipedia article at the time the letter to the editor was written, strongly suggesting that Jha got their information from Wikipedia and that their letter is circular. At that time, Wikipedia attributed the numbers to the report, but without actually citing a source.
- If you want to get to the bottom of it, keep digging. Otherwise, after fourteen and a half years without citing a reliable source, maybe it's time to remove it. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, I pasted JSTOR's citation directly in a hurry. I found this Indian source which also supports these numbers. It claims to have used publications from "Illustrated Weekly of India Asian Recorder, TIME Magazine," and "Newsweek Magazine." I also found:
- Pandey, Hemant Kumar; Singh, Manish Raj (2017). INDIA’S MAJOR MILITARY & RESCUE OPERATIONS. Horizon Books. p. 120. ISBN 9789386369390.
Total 90,368
- Pandey, Hemant Kumar; Singh, Manish Raj (2017). INDIA’S MAJOR MILITARY & RESCUE OPERATIONS. Horizon Books. p. 120.
- Additionally, Google scholar brings up two sources that look like they confirm the figure as well, but I think my adblock and noscript is stopping them from loading so I can't confirm the details.
- The reason I prefer to have a number like 90,368 is because it is more precise and specific than an estimate of 90,000-93,000. There's also the specific amounts of servicemen and civilians which add up to this number. At the very least, these sources could warrant leaving the table in the article. However, if the vast majority of sources estimate the total number to be 90,000 (I do have around 10 more sources which put it at that amount, if you'd like) and some at 93,000, then I think the infobox should say 90,000-93,000 captured or 90,000+ captured. SpicyBiryani (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, I pasted JSTOR's citation directly in a hurry. I found this Indian source which also supports these numbers. It claims to have used publications from "Illustrated Weekly of India Asian Recorder, TIME Magazine," and "Newsweek Magazine." I also found:
- @
- None of these state either 90,368 or 93,000 but "over 90,000," which is a closer approximation to 90,368 than 93,000, but I don't want to indulge in
- Be wary of the logical fallacy of precision bias, in which a more precise number is erroneously believed more likely to be true. Better to heed John Allen Paulos's maxim, "Implausibly precise statistics are often bogus."[14]
- Of the sources mentioned in your latest post:
- The first is not a genuine newspaper, it's a mock up of an imaginary newspaper, created 30 years after the fact by a military fansite. It isn't remotely a reliable source. I see no claim that they used Illustrated Weekly of India, Asian Recorder, Time, or Newsweek in compiling their story. If they did, you could try to find the figures in those primary sources and then see if reputable historians have cited them in secondary sources.
- Pandey and Singh? Who are they? Who is Horizon Books, or their parent company Ignited Minds Edutech? Why is their book not held by any WorldCat libraries? Those are all questions to ask when evaluating the source's reliability. The first paragraph of their first chapter is an unattributed copy condensed from the first and third paragraphs of Wikipedia's WP:CIRCULAR, and that their book is not a reliable source at all.
- The first is not a genuine newspaper, it's a mock up of an imaginary newspaper, created 30 years after the fact by a military fansite. It isn't remotely a
- Of the Google Scholar results, I'm not sure which two of the five you meant, but:
- The Nigerian master's thesis lies about where the paragraph containing the POW numbers came from. It's an unattributed copy of two paragraphs from the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. At that time, Wikipedia cited Nayar's 1998 Indian Express article for the first half (not the POW numbers), but Nayar didn't even support most of the first half. The thesis is WP:CIRCULARand not reliable.
- Majid's article in the Romanian Journal of European Affairs says "despite the immense pressure they were under to secure the release of nearly 93,000 prisoners of war".
- The Nigerian master's thesis lies about where the paragraph containing the POW numbers came from. It's an unattributed copy of two paragraphs from the Wikipedia article as of July 2013. At that time, Wikipedia cited Nayar's 1998 Indian Express article for the first half (not the POW numbers), but Nayar didn't even support most of the first half. The thesis is
- To summarize the discussion so far, we have seven books by notable historians, published by academic presses, all of which support the 93,000 figure. We have no reliable sources that support the precise number 90,368.
- The sources you've put forward do not at all justify leaving the table of precise numbers in the article. Indeed, as the quality of sources you're floating goes down and down, I'm more and more inclined to remove the table of precise numbers as being bogus.
- The sources which say "over 90,000" do not contradict the 93,000 figure, so I see no reason for Wikipedia to change to "90,000-93,000 captured" or "90,000+ captured", but you're welcome to try to persuade other readers of this page that Wikipedia should round to the nearest ten thousand instead of the nearest thousand. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Of the sources mentioned in your latest post:
Claims of Bengali terrorism supported by "An International History of Terrorism"
In the "India's involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War" section there are multiple claims of Bengali terrorism against supporters of the Pakistan government, all of which are supported by citation from the book "An International History of Terrorism: Western and Non-Western Experiences", a compilation of articles edited by Jussi M. Hanhimäki and Bernhard Blumenau (the article which is cited is by the Bangladeshi scholar Rashed Uz Zaman). The problem with these citations is that they don't appear either on the indicated page (164) or anywhere within the article quoted. In fact, the article is entirely about Bengali terrorists in the colonial period in Bengal, with the 1971 war mentioned only in passing. Therefore, these claims are not supported by citation and must either be removed or appropriate citation added to support them. Kostja (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Good catch. The text and source were added in this edit. Based on previous experience with that editor's work, I've removed the text without trying very hard to find a source that supports it, or to find someplace in this article into which what Rashed Uz Zaman actually wrote could be shoehorned. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021
![]() | This edit request to Bangladeshi-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The war happened between Bangladesh and Pakistan. There was never a war in 1971 between India and Pakistan. I can send links if you want proof of that. Many of us(family members) fought in the war. It was a liberation war of east Pakistan Present Bangladesh. Please edit it. 213.31.232.197 (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done Please read the article properly, this was a 13 day war which formed part of the nine month long Bangladesh Liberation War. - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021
![]() | This Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a spelling mistake in the infobox, which says "Chhamb" instead of "Chamb." The link is also broken, so could someone make it link to
- Battle of Chamb, it seems the territory was indeed called "Chhamb". So I've left the name unaffected. —Sirdog (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Rape victims during Bangladesh liberation war
False claims: Most of the rape victims of the Pakistani Army and its allies were Hindu women.
It [rape] was also a means of purifying the "tainted" blood of Bengali Muslims.
[1]
… 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. …
[2]
The False sentence should be removed from lead para.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why not just harmonize the same with the sources and substitute Muslim for Hindu? Does that sound good to you Pravega? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @MBlaze Lightning: much more improvement needed at Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War, It seems some editors are trying to portray that most victims were Hindus and so they are trying to justify the barbarism of Pak army in a particular group's mindset.❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ISBN 978-1-55587-558-9.
- ISBN 978-1-4804-4195-8.
- You are misinterpreting the sources which was discussed here. The main reason why these atrocities are considered a genocide and not just a war crime is because the perpetrators were specifically targeting Hindus. Pakistan's collaborators or the Razakar forces included mainly Bengali Muslims so if you claim that Muslims were also targeted you are simply denying the genocidal claims which is endorsed by an academic consensus. Please do not change this. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
History
Who said that the war was of 13 days? 1971 war was the war of Bangladesh Liberation War. At that time, India helped Bangladesh. It was a war of 9 months where Indian army joined last few days not a month. Ridiculous history writing is not a good thing for the world. So, don't ridicule our history. 27.147.190.152 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Simple update of article reverted
I didn't want to start a talk page section but was forced to. I had recently edited the article in the place which cited the 1971 genocide article. The 1971 genocide article shows casualty range from 200,000 to 3,000,000 deaths . I updated the article from 300,000 to 200,000 [1] according to the page it is citing. It was reverted by Yoonadue terming it as "fiddling" which is baseless as I am citing a cencensus approved figure from the genocide article this page is citing. Kindly take a look. Truthwins018 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- This article does not cite the Networker audio clip, as you falsely claim, but scholarly sources that provide reliable estimates of the death toll, you conveniently shut your eyes to. Moreover, the Newyorker does not provide a tangible estimate. It says "While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway, the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). " Misrepresenting sources and fiddling with long-established scholarly backed estimates will not get you anywhere. --Yoonadue (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I believe your comments are due to lack of concideration on the edit and just your attempt to start an edit war which would get you no where. I have clearly mentioned that the article opening page mentions 300,000-3,000,000 and this figure is cited from another wikipedia page titled 1971 Bangladesh genocide. The Page quotes the 200,000 figure and its reliability has been discussed before. The newyorker source has been deemned credible by consensus and add on to the estimated range of death values from a wide range. The quotation of 200,000 with the CIA referrence can be discussed. Your lack of awareness on the established scholarly estimate has led you to the fiddling claim, which is clearly not being done. The estimate is very wide and offcourse doesn't give any clear value of the real figures. In this say, even lesser figures than 200,000 can be added. Truthwins018 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but scholars are. The CIA estimates are not exhaustive, and do not turn to writing incoherent and disoriented comments to obfuscate the discussion. Kerberous (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Incoherant and disoriented are in accordance with your understanding, but not meant by myself. I have only mentioned that the CIA figures are a neutral estimate to the death range and are quoted here 1971 Bangladesh genocide on the article or update the article according to the page it is citing. It becomes unconsistant when the page says "300,000" but the article it leads to says "200,000". Also exhaustive is your opinion and it doesn't count here on wikipedia. Come up with better reasons to not include a figure already accepted by "scholarly" concensus. Truthwins018 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- My only reason to start this section is so to clear the different figures. One page mentions "300,000" but it leads to a page which shows "200,000". This leads to confusion as both the pages show different numbers. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021
![]() | This Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |