Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive 2

Well this article Battle of Chawinda is full of WP:FAKE , uses fake claims which don't even supported by mentioned references.

it claims that Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda . The three reference mentioned there didn't claim pakistani victory, rather it was a stalemate, that we all know. Only thing Pakistan did is that they didn't let Superior Indian forces advance further and U.N Mandated ceasefire. This is how the battle ended.

have a look to the infobox ^[1] This is what mentioned earlier in Wikipedia I,e,. Result = stalemate , and un mandated ceasefire.

here are the reference mentioned in Wikipedia that claims the battle a stalemate but Few Pakistanis have written " Pakistan victory " in the result section that is WP:FAKE .

RESULT = Stalemate.^[2][3]

Reference 4 " ^[4] " only claims 25 Cavalry defeated there better equipped but clumsier foes like 2 armoured brigade defeated there opponent in Asal Uttar. It didn't claim pakistani victory at all.

so Make few changes in the article mention stalemate in the result section. thank you Astral Prince (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This has already had an WP:RFC on it and the community has decided in favour of the current version. You can see the discussion and results of the RFC at this venue. Please stop pushing your point of view into this article (and other articles which have achieved consensus for that matter). Comments you are making have already been discussed raised before and weighed by an uninvolved admin and the consensus was to stick with "Pakistani Victory" as per sources and facts. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

this has been already discussed and concluded and I do not see why it has to be open again ! , please refer to RFQ above this has been closed Shrikanthv (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

39.32.36.230 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Indian doesn't crossed to mahadrapur because that would mean having crossed sialkot cantonment which is impossible

 Not done - it clearly says "According to Indian claims" - and you have not cited a reliable source to prove anything to the contrary. - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of Chawinda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719144243/http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/mar/chawinda.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/mar/chawinda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073753/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter11.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073555/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073555/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719144243/http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/mar/chawinda.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/mar/chawinda.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MBL would you like to explain your recent edits? As, 1) the source you provided does support the figure you added. 2) Why would you remove the Indian claim text and present it as a fact, especially when Indian loses are also mentioned in the infobox as a claim? This is pure POV pushing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This source is neutral and thus the Indian claim for it can be removed. I think we should present it as 460 km2 (Neutral claim) - 518km2 (Indian claim) This keeps both the figures and accurately presents the claims as they are. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. How do you decide if the source is neutral? Nevertheless, if that's what you suggest, why not add neutral source tag with the figures cited by Steven J. Zaloga in the same infobox? BTW, I couldnt find the source (given by MBL) supporting 460km2, we need to address this before we proceed ahead.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 15:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you doubt the neutrality of that source it is fine. Then lets take the neutral source per the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page which still states 460km2 (). This has been deemed neutral on that page and thus by reference can be extended here to be neutral. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As a a side note you just said that the source which MBlaze Lightning provided does support the numbers and then you said you cannot find it. Can you please have a consistent stand? I have noticed this on an earlier talk page discussion as well where you keep shifting goal posts to suit a POV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read my comment(s) again, and then read them again, one more time. The source provided by MBL does not support the figure (460 km2). The page he refereed to doesnt mention the figure. I stated this both the time. I am sorry if you couldnt understand simple explanations. Secondly, to me, putting up a WP:FAKE source and then you supporting it blindly seems a more appropriate way to push POV. So, I 'll request you to refrain from casting WP:ASSERTIONS.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 15:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am quoting you from the very first comment on this discussion: "the source you provided does support the figure you added." and then you quote "I couldnt find the source (given by MBL) supporting 460km2". To me these look contradicting statements but maybe to you they seem to say the same thing. Second, the source mentioned does support the 460km2 and page 294 (and not page 245). As a senior editor I would expect you to do your due diligence before claiming the source does not state the number. I did my due diligence and thus could say that it did. It is highly recommended that one edit very carefully on articles which see high degree of opposing views rather than later claim that one was not aware of regulations after a long break from editing. None the less we have another source which has been been deemed neutral on the war page itself which clearly states 460km2 as well which should end this discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the onset of providing the correct source is on the adding editor (MBL in this case). You could have saved everybody's time only if you had done what you are suggesting me to do; checked the source provided by MBL for its correctness, especially when the error was pointed out. You instead considered it appropriate to lecture others. Anyhow, going by the third party source being neutral rule, I would suggest to include Steven J. Zaloga as a neutral source too.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not lecturing anyone here just stating that one should be careful so that one does not get blocked for violating a sanction or edit warring. Also please proof read your edits since they can mislead other editors on what you are trying to say. Second, you need to take the other sources neutrality on the main war page and is beyond the scope of this discussion. That source has been used as a Pakistani claim there as well and thus by extension here as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Four sources are used for claiming "Pakistani victory".

• Fricker, John (1979). Battle for Pakistan: the air war of 1965. University of Michigan: I. Allan. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-71-100929-5. = Unreliable source because John Fricker's sources were only PAF.
• Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization By Stephen P. Cohen, Sunil Dasgupta pg. 1971 = Wonder how India "suffered its own debacle" can be termed as victory for Pakistan.
• The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks By Steven J. Zaloga Pg. 36 = Source is unavailable and the quote needs to be provided since it is being used for a controversial conclusion.
• Amin, Shahid M. (2010). Pakistan's foreign policy: a reappraisal. Northwestern University: Oxford University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-19-547912-6. = The author's description is "Shahid M. Amin served in the Pakistan Foreign Service in various capacities including Ambassador and Special Envoy." From the same Google book. That's not a reliable source and lacks specialisation in military.

The result should be ceasefire since the battle stopped after the ceasefire mandated by the UN. Razer(talk) 04:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You're correct about the result. These sources are not enough for disputing the widely accepted results of the battle. My quick search shows that "the results were indecisive",() "the outcome of which was inconclusive",(), etc. --RaviC (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I had checked The M47 and M48 Patton Tanks about more than 6 months ago when access was available to everyone. I can confirm that the book makes no claim of Pakistan victory. Source has been misused there. My Lord (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. We should not let infobox claim Pakistani victory until we have multiple reliable sources indicating that Pakistan won the battle. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Razer2115: Can you please provide us some reliable sources which place this as a ceasefire? I will spend some time and examine the current sources. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ceasefire has been mentioned by sources, right now I can show one. Although we can settle to something else as indicated by sources from RaviC. Both of his sources verifies results of the battle differently and offer zero support to current parameter that says "Pakistani victory". Razer(talk) 10:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article and sources, listing the result as an outright Pakistani victory makes no sense because Pakistan did not actually gain anything other than simply halting an Indian invasion. Also, the reliable sources also don't list this as victory for Pakistan: --1990'sguy (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please note John Fricker was working in PAF as a military advisor. He should not be considered as a Neutral third party but a Pakistani source. There have been several discussions on this on Wiki talk pages of Ind-PAk articles. He clearly had a WP:COI as any pakistani defeat would have looked bad on his resume.--DBigXray 13:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Fricker's book, "written for the Pakistan Government", isn't even a reliable source (as it is full of glaring factual inaccuracies such as incorrect statistics regarding the air battles), let alone third-party. He was hired by the PAF to write Pakistan's version of history. The same is the case with Pakistan's Foreign Policy: A Reappraisal; it's a book on Pakistan's foreign policy, written by someone who served in the Pakistani foreign service, and who doesn't know anything about military history: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --RaviC (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• There appears to be clear consensus - so remove it. The result of the battle was not a victory for the Pakistanis; if it was, then there would be a number of third-party reliable sources saying the exact same thing, but here that is simply not the case.

Results should reflect what the preponderance of neutral, reliable third-party sources say. For starters, like I said, two of the four sources cited in the infobox do not meet this requirement; they are in no sense third-party, and ergo should not be used at all. It is for the same reason we haven't used the Indian government sources claiming a stalemate in this battle.

Arming without Aiming: India's Military Modernization, aside from the fact that it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; I see only a short paragraph about the 1965 war in general, and a single sentence about battle of Chawinda in particular, it doesn't support the claim of Pakistan victory either. The only reasonable interpretation of the phrase in question is that the Indians couldn't advance any further, basically what the majority of reliable sources say.

While it is true that India's advance culminated in the Battle of Chawinda, the fighting only stopped after the ceasefire was announced; it is not a victory when the Pakistanis had already lost hundreds of square miles of territory in the Sialkot region, with the enemy still on his feet. The result parameter should say: Inconclusive; Pakistan halts Indian invasion. This, I believe, accurately describes the result of the battle, and is in line with what the preponderance of reliable sources say.

For example, see how Higgins, David R. (2016). M48 Patton vs Centurion: Indo-Pakistani War 1965. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 72. ISBN 9781472810939 describes the result of the battle of Chawinda: "Even so, although Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region, they had shot their bolt and were exhausted. Pakistani armour had been battered, and stocks of artillery ammunition were nearly expended." --RaviC (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed 3 completely vandalizing edits by User:Anzan7 on 3 separate wiki pages, including this one, regarding India–Pakistan relations. Not sure if this is just mischief or a deliberate plan for vandalism. I gave benefit of doubt to user:Anzan7 by notifying him about the arbitration results about India Pakistan topics. thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

They weren't vandalizing edits. Before you edited them recently, they had correct information. For example, the Indo-Pak war of 1965 was a stalemate according to UN and the Tashkent declaration; see here:https:https://www.dw.com/en/why-neither-india-nor-pakistan-won-the-1965-war/a-18677930. To make clearly biased claims that are not factually substantiated, as you have quite evidently done, would be called "vandalizing". Good day. Anzan7 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Battle of Chawinda has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Result Pakistan victory Abdul alim mia (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the change you'd like to make. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This RfC should answer that.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The sources cited, which are of good quality, seem clear that the result was inconclusive. Unless some other sources of equal quality come along, no revision is warranted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. The Battle of Chawinda was the final engagement in the Second Kashmir War. The sources rightly say that the Second Kashmir War was inconclusive -- but the Battle of Chawinda wasn't inconclusive. As demonstrated in the RfC that I personally closed six years ago, the sources say that the Battle of Chawinda was a Pakistani victory. The RfC outcome was challenged and confirmed here. Please allow it to be implemented.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not possible until this more recent consensus has been overturned. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aman.kumar.goel. I didn't know that there was discussion before the result field was changed. The current sources are certainly much better than the old ones, they are newer and broader, and therefore more neutral. In response to S Marshall, these sources are indeed saying that the result of Battle of Chawinda was a draw, not that the overall war was a draw.

Honestly, I don't know how scholars decide the wins or losses. Pakistan retained Chawinda. In that sense, it had won. But is that all there is to it? Indians certainly knew that whatever territory they won, they would eventually have to give back. And Chawinda is not such an important piece of territory that it would make a difference for anything. But the Indians got Pakistan (a) to agree to an unconditional ceasefire, and (b) to agree to a truce without any concessions on Kashmir. In that sense, it seems to me that India achieved whatever it was trying to achieve in Chawinda. Knowledgeable scholars would understand the big picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• That short, poorly attended discussion doesn't overturn a community RFC.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you all very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Undone against consensus and the facts that appear in every source. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No reliable source denies those two facts. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, the result field is implementing an RfC result. You can't change it without achieving WP:CONSENSUS for the change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. RfC was 6 years old and the last consensus to change the result was 3 years old. Obviously a new discussion would be needed to change anything from "inconclusive". You can't overturn the latest consensus without providing clear cut WP:RS for supporting "pakistani victory" which is meaningless in this context per your own reply above. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point, your only option is to do another RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:V is among five pillars of Wikipedia, not RfC. Upholding a 6 years old RfC against a consensus sticking for more than 3 years is not going to fly.

See: David R. Higgins (20 January 2016). M48 Patton vs Centurion: Indo-Pakistani War 1965. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-1-4728-1093-9.:

"At 1630hrs, with the Pakistani position faltering, Brigadier Abdul Ali Malik, commander of 24th Infantry Brigade, expressed doubts about being able to hold his position and unsuccessfully sought permission to withdraw from Chawinda. Pakistani artillery fired at Indian armour at Butur Dograndi from some 1,500m, which halted the Indian movement. 25th Cavalry tanks engaged as well, and this artillery/tank combination knocked out four Indian tanks; 24th Cavalry then stemmed the advance in this sector. Lieutenant-General Dunn, GOC I Corps, met with 1st Armoured Division and 6th Mountain Division at Maharajke to discuss fresh plans for Indian forces to capture Chawinda, Bedian and Zafarwal. 6th Mountain Division was tasked with taking Chawinda, while 1st Armoured Division and 14th Infantry Division moved on Bedian and Zafarwal, respectively. Since 6th Mountain Division’s 69th and 99th Mountain brigades were already committed elsewhere, 35th and 58th Infantry brigades were reallocated to Major-General Korla’s 6th Mountain Division from 1st Armoured Division. As a preliminary to launching an attack on Chawinda, Indian forces captured certain villages; these would serve as pivots to attack Chawinda, and to counter any Pakistani attempts to interfere. In a series of brisk actions, 1st Armoured Division employed 4th Horse, 17th Horse and 8th Garhwal Rifles, securing the villages by dusk against stiff resistance. Pakistan lost 28 tanks during the day. Several Indian commanders were also killed. During the night of 16/17 September, 1st Armoured Division headquarters misunderstood the reallocation of 35th Infantry Brigade to 6th Mountain Division, and moved the brigade forward from Gadgor to Phillora as part of a preliminary attack move before the brigade returned to its original location, thereby wasting valuable time. After three days of heavy fighting, 17 September was relatively calm, with only minor repositioning. The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda, but it had created a large penetration between Bedian and Chawinda. Localized Pakistani counter-attacks achieved little, and Indian armour and infantry held all their gains against tenacious Pakistani attacks. Tank battles raged throughout the morning and afternoon, with both sides losing eight vehicles each. 6th Mountain Division was to effect its attack on Chawinda while 1st Armoured Division held key villages west of Chawinda to cover Korla’s command until it captured the settlement. However the attack, slated for the night of 17/18 September, was again postponed for 24 hours. After Major-General Rajinder Singh stressed that his 1st Armoured Division had been holding villages west of Chawinda and would be hard pressed to continue doing so, the division was withdrawn from two of the villages; but it retained Jassoran at all costs, as this represented a firm base of operations for the Indian infantry. According to 1st Armoured Brigade, conditions during 14–17 September had been favourable for an infantry assault on Chawinda, as it and Bedian had been isolated and cut off from three sides, following 1st Armoured Brigade’s having invested both from the rear, particularly on 16 and 17 September. Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise, and an opportunity was lost. Even so, although Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region, they had shot their bolt and were exhausted. Pakistani armour had been battered, and stocks of artillery ammunition were nearly expended."

Given this detailed source, more detailed than the sources of dubious reliability rejected in earlier consensus notes that Pakistan "halted the Indian offensive" and also notes the Indian gains, it really makes no sense to conclusions of victory and defeat. Why can't we stick to sources at this stage? Srijanx22 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read it again. The source you provide above clearly states ... stemmed the advance in this sector ..., The Pakistanis had halted the Indian assault on Chawinda ..., Roughly two Pakistani infantry companies held the area near each objective, but as these were reinforced, applying Indian armour was considered unwise and Pakistan forces had halted the Indian offensive in the Sialkot region .... The rest is just "icing on the cake". The real meat of the matter was that it was a clear victory for Pakistan. Indian military were unable to take Chawinda because the Pakistani military did not let them take Chawinda. The war's result was decidedly inconclusive; however, the battle for Chawinda resulted in a clear, conclusive victory for Pakistan (even according to the source you quoted above). This is not just a matter on which editors may agree or disagree. This is a matter of what the sources say, and even Higgins indicates that the battle of Chawinda was won by Pakistan. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The source does not make that interpretation. All it says is that the Indian offensive came to a stop at Chawinda but they continued to hold the surrounding villages in the Sialkot region of Pakistan, and that the Pakistani had shot their bolt. If anything, that just implies that the Indians were in a commanding position to dictate things at Chawinda had the ceasefire not come into force. See, for example, : Chawinda ( Pak ) held out for another five days when the cease - fire saved it from capitulation or war ravages . The tank battles of Phillora , Jassoran and Butur Dograndi were historic and the victory which the Indian troops won was unique...

In any case, the fact of the matter is that the RFC that you have so forcefully invoked to change results had not stood the test of time and was duly changed back in 2017. That discussion too involved half a dozen participants, if not more, and what eventually emerged was a clear unanimous consensus that inconclusive was an apt description of the result of this battle, in line with what the preponderance of third party, reliable sources said. More importantly, it rejected the very sources on which you have based your case: John Fricker (who was officially tasked to write a history of the war by the Pakistani government) and the book written by one of the Pakistan's foreign service officer. That's just how the normal consensus process works. And mind you, that consensus has stood the test of time for three years now, a fact that reinforces its credibility and relevance. Trying to pretend otherwise, or deliberately failing to consider that as if no discussion took place is simply disruptive. Edit warring to force things is even moreso. Now if you feel so strongly about this whole thing to the extent of asserting that Chawinda "was a clear victory for Pakistan", then show us your sources and achieve a new consensus. Until then, the status-quo will prevail. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to overlook your apparent lack of AGF and your unjust blame of edit warring, which I have not done. It is you who are pretending that the so called 2017 consensus, which actually took place in 2018 (if that is the consensus you mean), was able to overturn the previous consensus. Consensus can change, but more importantly you need to stop denying the obvious meanings from the sources, even the Higgins source you quoted. No, Higgins does not actually call it a Pakistani victory, but he does imply it. And it would not be the first time that one side "had shot their bolt", but the other side was unaware of it. Had the Indian military known that the bolt had been shot, then Higgins would not have written that the Indian military considered it to be "unwise" to attack Chawinda. It is you who seems to feel too strongly about this, so stop denying it. It's like a 4th quarter football game where one team makes a touchdown to tie the game, or a runner making the tying run in the 9th inning of a baseball game. Pakistan held on to Chawinda. India did not take Chawinda. No amount of denial can change those two facts. Can you produce a reliable source that states otherwise? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Response to MBlaze: I had organised the references into two groups (those supporting Pakistani victory and those calling it a stalemate). There should be no need to remove this while you argue about what the result field should say.

I am happy to remove Fricker, which reads like a propaganda piece to me anyway, but Shahid Amin is fine with an OUP book.

Cohen and Dasgupta, who are strategic experts, have called it a "debacle" for India. A bit overstated, but not far off the mark if you read the detailed military assessments. Yes, Pakistan was on the verge of defeat. But India wasn't able to take adantage of that since its own armour had been sent back for refitting.^[1] India threw infantry regiments in front of Pakistani shelling from Chawinda. They got cut to pieces and ran away (literally!).^[2]

When the Indian prime minister asked the Army chief, do you want a couple more days to achieve your "spectacular victory", the Army chief replied, "no we are done" (my paraphrasing).^[3] So, Johri's idea that Pakistan "got saved" by the ceasefire doesn't hold water. In 20th century wars, you don't get an infinite amount of time to do your job. Either you get it done or call it off. And look at those casualty numbers! It would be considered criminal if it happend today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if there is scope for a further RfC about this, to confirm or overturn the previous one.—S Marshall T/C 10:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)