Talk:Battle of Chawinda

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the article doesn't cite reliable references . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.71.10 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

decisive victory

There are some users who r trying to minimize the extant of pakistani victory by adding point less terms like "tactical pakistani victory and strategic stalemate" ...

Dude... u know wht decisive victory is ? its to gain ur objectives.

Pak army halted indian advance and tht was the main objective of 25th cavalry and 1st armoured division sent as reinforcement.

Mission accomplished and a decisive victory gained, indians stopped all offensives at sialkot sector (they couldnt afford more such losses for the time being) and were further pushed back in operation wind up.

As for providing a neutral site as a reference for operation wind up, then its a matter of fact that indo pak battles arent famous enough to gain attention from western sites so there is no point of a mention of an operation of 1965 battle in western (i.e neutral ) sites.

why dont u provide me some thing saying operation wind up was a spam and was never successful ???

provide me a reference againt it or just accept it untill u find one to challange it. dont just verbally challange thing on the basis of indian propaganda.

if you disagree we can have a third opinion. which will be final.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Decisive victory means total and complete domination of enemy forces. In Battle of Chawinda the most Pakstani forces were able to do was to tactically halt Indian advance but beyond that the battle had turned into a stalemate and no side was able to advance much further into others territory. The Pakistani forces never completely dominated the battle and till ceasefire was called Indians still retained much area they had captured.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

here is an indian site [1] which talks about superior pakistani position in chawinda at cease fire time, but also criticize general ayub khan of not launching operation wind up in time. but it never says that the operation was a failure, though it an indian site.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a Pakistani site and only provides Pakistani version of conflict. Also criticism of general ayub khan by even almost all Pakistani sites show that the Operation wind up was launched too late to make any major difference.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

you are actually mixing things up, dont mix battle of chawinda with war of 1965,

As you said decisive victory means a complete domination upon the enemies, so u r ur self supporting a decisive victory terminology for pakistani victory at chawinda.

Look, things are simple.... india attacked sialkot sector on 6th september, pakistan counter attacked at khem kharen sector on 8th september, which was halt at patton nager (assal uttar) on 10th september. Pak retrieved its 1st armoured division from assal uttal and transfered it to sialkot sector to counter indian attack. This reinforcement hold the lines for a while (at battle of phillora ) then retreated to a defensive position at chawinda on 11th september. Then battle of chawinda started, (which was clearly a defensuive battle). the sector was reinforced by pakistani 25th cavalry etc and all indian attacks on chawinda sector were repulsed with heavy losses untill indian army at tht sector became unoperational left its all offenvies.

Now tell me at the specific battle of chawinda who was dominating ???? didnt pak army achieved its most valuable objective of halting indian advance which was aimed to cut off pak supply line by capturing Grand trunk road ???

Did pak army achieved its objective or not ? yes they did, they were dominating them at tht sector therefore they launched operation wind up, otherwise indian could also launch any such operation in khem kharen sector after assal uttar but they avoided tht and rather concentrated more on strategic sialkot sector, assal uttar technicolly was a tactical victory but strategic stalemate as indians didnt tried to roll back the lost territory.

As for the fact tht operation wind up was launched too late, then dude, try some calculations, chawinda reached its climax on 22nd september and cease fire was declared on 23rd september, wht could this operation can hv done in one day even if indians regard it as unsuccessful. Atleast pakistani army launched an operation to roll back lost territory, indians even couldnt do tht khem kharen. This clearly shows the superior paki position at sialkot sector, they were confidant enough to star a wind up operation.

"As for neutral sites, you know tht i know it as well tht there is no neutral site on inter net covering 1965 war's tactical maneuvers. So forget it, either stop writing these article in detail or decide things from common sense using third opinions from other non-subcontinental users.

I may sound to u a pro-paki and unbaised, the same u sounds to me as a matter of fact, but try thinking logically apart from patriotism.

If you still disagree fell free to invite a third opinion, but till then observe status quo, do not change the article result from decisive victory to whatever.... as u r the one to challange this pre-mentioned statement so burden of prove lies on you, not me.

I am reverting back ur edits to last version of the article before ur arrival, so plz dont engage in an edit war otherwise discussing issues here are meaning less. I assume good faith and expect from others the same.

Regards.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the the word "decisive" it looks like you do not know the difference between decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory. I would like to quote the meaning of these terms. Firstly decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict. Secondly tactical victory is a victory in which the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor. Finally strategic victory is a victory that brings long-term advantage to the victor, and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war.

Now if you have understood the difference between the terms, you would understand Battle of Chawinda did not influenced the result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. On the other hand Battle of Chawinda was cut short because of ceasefire which was already scheduled. Thus it was not a decisive victory. Secondly it was not strategic victory as the Battle of Chawinda did not necessarly disturbed the India's ability to wage a war and only 14% of India's frontline ammunition had been fired in the whole Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and India held twice the number of tanks as Pakistan.Thus both nations could have continued the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. In-fact Pakistan was in a worse state when ceasefire was called as Pakistani Army had used close to 80% of its ammunition. It was though a tactical victory for Pakistan as losses of the India outweigh those of the Pakistan. Also regardless of what you think the fact is India still controlled most of area it had captured till ceasefire.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

first of all i told you not to revert my edits untill dispute is resolved, avoid edit warring plz or u wanna get blocked ?

Any ways, you r again mixing battle with war, as nepolian said once some time u lose the battles but win the war, i.e a particular battle have little or some time no influence on the actual results of the war n some time it determines the whole future of the combatants.

In case of chawinda, india failed to achieve their objective on the other hand pakistan achieved all its objectives. It was due to chawinda that 1965 war reached the stalemate or else india had upper hand after asl uttar. And as you gave the defination above, decisive victory is the one that influences the result of the battle, wht else contributed to stalemate of 1965 war other then chawinda ?? wht else ?

playing with words wont help, accept the logic.

and u r requested not to revert my edits this time, keep the status quo until we hv reached consensus. I hope u know the WP:TRR policy of wikipedia.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

1965 war reached the stalemate not because of Battle of Chawinda but rather because of international pressure from USA, UNSC and Soviet Union. India accepted it based on report given by Gen. Chaudhuri of Indian Army to Indian Prime Minister. Pakistan accepted because shortage of ammunition after USA stopped supplies. Battle of Chawinda did not affect results of Indo-Pakistan War of 1965.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

All the sources (neutral) says tht before cease fire both had already reached a stalemate. Ammunation story isnt true, atleast no neutral source mentions it and indian sources not worth reading as they are obviously biased, same is the case with pak sources. So try reading some independent scholarly works on the battle, if there was no chawinda, indians would have captured grand trunk road (main objective of their attack on sialkot sector as u know) and pakistan would be in a humbled condition.

So it was chawinda that gave pak a come back in the war after its heavy loses in assal uttar. And obviously i am following ur own defination, according to which decisive battle is the one tht have a great influence on the ultimate result of the war. so accept it, according to ur own defination u hv declared chawinda as a decisive victory for pakistan.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

lets try an inverse hypotheses. Tell me wht would have happned if pak had lost chawinda ???

I am waiting ......

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The ammunition story on battlefield might or might not be true on battlefield but definitely a report regarding was given to the then Prime Minister of India Gen. Chaudhuri which then formed the basis of decision making process of India regarding ceasefire. This report was based on halting of arms supply by US and UK which were India's main supplier at that time and not on results of Battle of Chawinda. Then there was also the pressure of International community as a whole specially US and Soviet Union. Also as India was leading the Non-Aligned Movement it gained little support from any of the P-5 nations which had veto powers to block UNSC resolution and ceasefire.

On Pakistan side the embargo by US only major weapons supplier to Pakistan had drastic effect on Pakistani leadership physiologically as well as on ground in terms on amount of ammunition available. This coupled with the knowledge of India's larger arsenal made Pakistan more than happy to accept ceasefire.

Now regarding inverse hypotheses, if pak had lost chawinda and India had gained control of grand trunk road, the UN resolution would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. India could not have been able to disregard it specially when it was facing arms embargo from all it's weapon supplier nations as it would also have meant a UN peace force being deployed apart from isolating India internationally.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thus the war would not have dragged on even if Pakistan lost Chawinda and ceasefire was eminent.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i am talking about the results of war, would it be a defeat for pakistan if pak had lost chawinda ??? indian army would have had a clear superiority by dividing the pak supply line in to two half, wht would have been the result of war then ??? a stalemate or an indian victory ?

n for ur info cease fire dont contribute to the result of war, result of war are decided on strategical gournds not political, cease fire and all political negociations can hv effect only on long term consequences of the battle (tashkant agrrment in case of 1965 war for instance ) but it never conrtibute in the results in terms of a simple definations tht we are discussing here, victory, decisive victory or strategical/tactical victory. So get ur points clear first it will help u later in ur answer.

cease fire hv nothing to do with war results, see for example arab isreal wars, all had cease fire and in all of them isreal came out victorious, so leave the cease fire story here once for all

Now tell me, if pak had lost chawinda wht would hv been the result of the war ? indian victory or stalemate ??? explain ur asnwer with lofical facts plz.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what kind of Indian victory did you expect pak had lost chawinda. Give me your point of view and answer the same question "what would have happened if pak had lost chawinda ???".

Talking about Israel non of their wars were won by a single decisive victory in one battle but through a series tactical and strategic victories. I don't understand your point in quoting Napoleon ('some time u lose the battles but win the war') or talking about Israel winning wars without decisive victories. Wars can of course be won without decisive victories. In fact most wars specially in modern times are actually won without decisive victories. You actually are proving my point that the war of 1965 ended without a battle in which a single side gained total victory forcing the other nation to end conflict.

Read about decisive victories of past like Battle of Hastings, Battle of Waterloo or Battle of Gettysburg which lead to defeated side in desperate situation and being forced to accept surrender and were decisive only because the defeated side either lost a luge chunk of their forces or their leadership in form of their king. None of the things happened in chawinda.

Fighting in huge numbers and one side achieving their objective does not make a battle decisive if the looser still has the ability to strike back. Even the greatest battles like Battle of the Somme and Battle of Kursk in which one side achieved all their targets are not considered decisive because it made it made little impact towards achieving end of war as a whole.

In fact Battle of Chawinda was much like Battle of the Somme and Pakistani Army halted Indian offensive much like German Army had stopped Allied advance. Despite not achieving a break through at Somme the Allied forces still possessed the resources and will to fight. Similarly if Indians did not achieve a break through at Chawinda. India still possessed the resources and will to fight and war could have dragged with eventual defeat of Pakistan had ceasefire not been imposed.

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

lolz first of all i strongly recommand you to read some neutral material, your discussion seems one sided, a pro-indian. If u wish to write on an encyclopedia u gotta be neutral observer not an emotional fundamentalist, no offense.

You r continuously diverting from the main discussion, which is to prove/disprove that chawinda was a decisive battle. You gave a definition in start, according to which a battle which have a great impact on the final result of the war is called the decisive victory.

But then u r going againt ur self by not calling chawinda a decisive victory.

U r probably intentionally ignoring my point, of which u virtually dont have an answer.

Let me explain u in a mathematical manner.

Indian victory at assal uttar gives india +10 points and gave pak -10.

Pakistani victory at chawinda gave pak +10 and india a -10 point.

So whts the grand total ??? its 0.

Had pak lost chawinda, it would have got -10 again and india would have got +10,making a grand total equals to india=+20, pak=-20. and result of the war (irrespective of the cease fire, which hv nothing to do with war's result) would have been a clear indian victory at the time of cease fire.

chawinda gave pak +10, and it was the point equaling battle, which stabalized pak's position and according to an indian author Pradeep Barua in his book The state at war in South Asia pg.192, indians were forced to abandon all offenses on tht front on 21st september (not 22nd my mistake !), one and a half day before the cease fire, in the mean time pak launched operation wind up and got control of some land tht was lost to indian offensive on tht front before ceasefire was officially launched on 23rd september.

So chawinda was the battle tht equals pak's points to tht of india's, making the 1965 war a stalemate at the time of ceasefire.

now things are clear, it was decisive battle of chawinda tht gave pak an upper hand other wise if pak had lost tht battle india would have had a clear cut superiority.

it was chawinda tht helped in giving a grand total of 0.

So according to ur definition, chawinda had a great impact on the final result of the war, and thus was a decisive victory of pakistan.

As for ur hypothesis tht india would have won, if the war had dragged on, then its quite funny to have such views, when indian were decisively defeated on their offensive at sialkot sector and when they were not in position to even roll back khem kharen after their victory at asal utar. LOGIC my friend !

as u failed to logically answer my previous question, Now i ask u a new question,

did chawinda had an impact on the final result of the war when ceasefire was signed by both combatants. ???

if u fail to answer even this question then u will fail, u gonna hv to repeat ur semester again :).

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems you still don't understand the concept of decisive victory. Wars are not fought and won based on math. I told you to at least read about some great battles (Battle of Hastings, Battle of Waterloo or Battle of Gettysburg) so that you at least get some idea of what is considered a decisive victory but it seems you did not read them. I again request you to go through them at least once. If you read them you would understand the defeated army either lost their leadership(Battle of Hastings) or lost huge part of their army forcing them to surrender. Moreover in Battle of Gettysburg article there is paragraph if even Battle of Gettysburg could be considered a decisive victory.Read that carefully.

The whole concept of +/-10 is absurd. According to you for every battle or skirmish fought in a war must be given points on a 10 point scale based on amount of force used and the result is declared based on the sum of the number of victories or losses. I must remind you in this way each and every skirmish could and would have an impact on the result of war. So are you you saying every battle in 1965 War was decisive because they all could all be given some positive or negative number. Also if you are counting

Indian victory at assal uttar gives india +10 points and gave pak -10.

Pakistani victory at chawinda gave pak +10 and india a -10 point.

So according to you Assal Uttar was also decisive as, if India had lost it India would have gained -20 points. Actually both these victories and all other battles did make an small impact on result but such victories which have to be added up to get result are considered tactical.

On other hand a decisive victory is a single victory after which the victor need not care much about his opponent and the opponent is forced to accept surrender. So did India accept ceasefire based on result of Battle of Chawinda?? The answer is no. The ceasefire was called because of international pressure and UN Resolution.

As for 'if the war had dragged on' India had not started the war and had crossed International Border to relieve it's forces from sudden launch Pakistani offensives of Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam and stop them. The unprepared Indians with limited forces had brought the war to a standstill. The Pakistani Army which had planning and preparing for these offensives for a long time had in turn been pushed back on many fronts. If the Indian forces located deep inside India which were being rushed to front had reached the front they would definitely crushed Pakistan Army. Also this assessment is not My Hypothesis but rather neutral assessments by United States Library of Congress Country Studies, TIME magazine and other neutral authors. Visit [2] for more details.

Also I ask againWhat kind of Indian victory did you expect Pakistan had lost chawinda?? apart from childishly giving points. Explain how situation would have changed on ground.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All right let me quote some of famous battles of history which fall in various categories(tactical, strategic and decisive) along with their eventual impact on war. You can decide Battle of Chawinda falls into which category

Type Name Result

Tatical Battle of the Somme Germans halt Allied Advance

Strategic Battle of Kursk Russian halt German attack and destory large amount German resources

Strategic Attack on Pearl Harbor Japanese destory large fleet of US Pacific fleet

Decisive Battle of Hastings Eventual end to Anglo-saxons rule in England

Decisive Battle of Waterloo Eventual end to Napoleon's rule

Decisive Battle of Gettysburg Eventual end to Confederates rule

Decisive Battle of Singapore Eventual end to Allied control in South East Asia

As you can see Battle of Chawinda did not bring eventual end to anything. The Pakistani forces at most halted Indian advance making it tactical.So according to me

Tatical Battle of Asal Uttar Indian forces halt Pakistani Advance

Tatical Battle of Chawinda Pakistani forces halt Indian Advance

--UplinkAnsh (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

lolzz u focused too much of ur precious time on points stuff, dude a simply answer for u, points were given to pitch battles only, not skirmishes.

and dude by saying ...a decisive victory is a single victory after which the victor need not care much about his opponent and the opponent is forced to accept surrender. you are changing ur own definition of decisive victory. how many definitions u gonna give to prove ur point ??? first u said tht battle should have impact on final result of the war, then u said enemy forces should be so badly crushed tht they lost power to fight and now u r saying tht they should be defeated to such a extant tht they will accept surrender. Make ur mind first, which defination of urs u wanna follow.

According to ur first definition, chawinda was a decisive battle as i have discussed in my all above posts.

According to ur second definition, chawainda was still a decisive battle as indian army virtually became unoperational on sialkot front due to their heavy losses and ceased all offensives almost 2 days before the cease fire.

According to ur 3rd definition, the matter of surrender would have been decided if the battle had dragged on, at least on sialkot front indians were in worst condition....

As for tht so called neutral assesment, then dude its a matter of fact, certain people and publications have their sympathies with certain sectors, for instance if the same report would have been published by Al-Jazeera News, the assessment would have been totally different.

As for un-prepared indian troops, lolz u kidding me ? they attacked international border of their hostile neighbour and were still unprepared ? Keep in mind indian troops were 10 time larger then pak's army. and as for ur's interesting discovery tht main indian troops didnt reached the front to fight pak, dude !!! battle dragged on for 17 days and ur troops were still not their on front ? wht a brilliant excuse my friend, wht a great mobilization abilities of a professional army tht it need more then 17 days to reach the battle grounds lolzz.

any ways i urge u to please stop asking weird questions to me and stop mixing up battles with wars. And next time u reply, try answering my questions first,

Did chawinda's victory had an impact on the final result of war, a day before the ceasefire ?

Wht would have had happned if pak had lost chawinda ?

Would the result of 1965 war had been still a stalemate if pak had lost chawinda ?'

Now take ur time and reply logically, try squeezing our discussion to these three points or it never gonna end if u kept beating about the bush, no offense, peace.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude first read about the list of battles I have given to know what is considered to be a tactical, strategic and decisive battle. Read something about military history every battle has a lesser impact on overall war but very few single wars force the end of war and defeat of a nation. These are the ones which are called decisive victories. Let me reply to your questions and you reply to mine.

Did chawinda's victory had an impact on the final result of war?

Every battle effected the result of war including Battle of Asal Uttar, Operation Gibraltar, Operation Grand Slam, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Lahore but no single battle resulted in end of war. All battles gave the winner an edge in discussions in Tashkent Declaration which came out as result of war.

What would have had happned if pak had lost chawinda?

My point of view - If pak had lost chawinda and India had gained control of grand trunk road, the UN resolution would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. India could not have been able to disregard it specially when it was facing arms embargo from all it's weapon supplier nations as it would also have meant a UN peace force being deployed apart from isolating India internationally. I have copied the reply given above which you did not seem to notice.

Would the result of 1965 war had been still a stalemate if pak had lost chawinda ?

UNSC would still have passed a mandate for ceasefire and would not have been vetoed by any of P-5 nation. This would have stopped the war.

How many definitions u gonna give to prove your point ???

Read decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory with examples. They are one and the same.

stop mixing up battles with wars??

The list I gave you is of decisive battles that changed the course of wars of different wars. You seem to be stupid enough to assume them for wars and still have not read about them even after my repeated telling you to read them.

neutral assessment??

US and US authors and publications have been and are Pakistan allies. Assessment by them that Pakistan would have lost is probably true.

Al-Jazeera News??

1)I don't find Al-Jazeera saying anywhere that Pakistan would have won. 2)Al-Jazeera probably sympathies with Al Queda. This shows that it is expert in accepting and spreading propaganda.

they attacked international border of their hostile neighbor and were still unprepared ?

Read [3]To stop of divert Operation Grand Slam India definitely had to do whatever they could at any resource at their disposal even if it meant attacking unprepared.

battle dragged on for 17 days??

Most Indian and Pakistani soldiers live deep in villages and it takes 15-30 days to call them to bases and then to move them to front. Pakistani Army offensive in South Waziristan takes 3-4 months to plan and prepare even today.

Now you reply to my questions

What kind of Indian victory do you expect Pakistan had lost chawinda??Explain how situation would have changed on ground?

Did you read about the list of battles I gave you?

What is your definition for decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory?

Give some examples of decisive victory, tactical victory and strategic victory apart from the ones I have given?

Battle of Assal Uttar and Battle of Chawinda both were fought with same force and same results. So why and how do you think only Battle of Chawinda was decisive victory?

Did other battles like Battle of Phillora,Battle of Lahore not make similar impact on results of war?

Why do you think assessments by US library, authors and publications are not neutral while US is Pakistans ally?--UplinkAnsh (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

lolzzz you said it takes 15-30 days to call them to bases and then to move them to front. haha... its not medieval ages that it took that much time to concentrate force dude wake up !

And who told you pak operation againt waziristan took 4 months of preparation ??? do you mean it took them 4 months to concentrate forces to attack waziristan ? hahaha....

Tell me one thing, why are you still haninging with the UN ceasefire ? i told you not to mix battle with war, chawinda was a battle it had its own result that had nothing to do with ceasefire.

Things are simple, if pak had lost chawinda, the result of the 1965 war would have been indian victory as the result of arab-isreal wars are isreali victory irrespective of ceasefire.

I dont understand why bring ceasefire again and again in the discussion when result of war isnt ceasefire, its rather a stalemate or indian/pakistani victory. Ceasefire is a resolution not a result if u try to understand it in its original sense.

Now try giving answers of my questions with out talking about ceasefire, as Decisive victory also defines the term as in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side.

And you know [4] this sources says indians stopped all offenses on 21st and their 1st armoured division was withdrawn. Pakistan did utterly overwhelmed the indians at chawinda therefore they confidently launched operation wind up, but in assal utar, though indians defeated pakistan, but they were not in condition to roll back their lost territory. Logic

Now chill !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

and one more thing, you have no right to ask questions to me, as you are the challenger and burden of prove lies on you, not on me. So you are obliged to answer my questions.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you have very little knowledge about military history and military terms. I gave you examples and tried to make you understand what constitutes by directly comparing them to famous battles in history but your lack of knowledge, biased approach(As you think only Pakistani victory constitutes a decisive victory while India victory at Asal Uttar is not while both were fought under similar conditions and results were similar as well) and inability to learn has brought the discussion to a deadlock. You can bring in a neutral third party who has some knowledge about military history and military terms to end a deadlock. So either you could request a neutral editor on wiki noticeboards or I would do it. Waiting for your reply.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok ... i will apply for third party opinion. If, due to my busy schedule i couldn't apply with in a days from now, then you go ahead and request it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not a "decisive" victory, I added a reference to an article of GlobalSecurity.org. -- Rattusdatorum (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Break

Hi. I've removed this listing from 3O because the conversation and the article are basically untouched. If either of you feel that strongly about it, I would recommend listing this page on any of the following Wiki projects: military history, Pakistan, or Indian history. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the battle

there has been repeated attempts by by TopGun (talk) to change the results [5] and [6] beware of wp:3rr discuss before reverting, the result is cited NPOV and perfectly correct. The result is for the battle of Chawinda in which there were multiple offensives from both sides. The battle ended on 22 due to the ceasefire. dont revert without proper citations, just on the basis of your wp:OR--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read this: [7] --lTopGunl (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read and the result is correctly stated and cited in the article after my edits. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read it, according to UplinkAnsh: "Tatical Battle of Chawinda Pakistani forces halt Indian Advance". The other user is even on the further side of this. And then there is me. You are the only one adding that result. The consensus is unchanged, and rather with me being another editor for this result, you are completely out weighed. You should self revert now and focus on other articles. Read WP:PRIDE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

again you are indulging in reverts made without a consensus? . you yourself have quoted a phrase and then you go on to add words damaging the neutrality ? zolga clearly states that both sides suffered heavy losses what is the logic of addding "successfully" ? when the phrase "Halt Indian Advance" gives the same info in clearly following wp:NPOV. the edit by Uplinkash was correct. and i have corrected the place of citation --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the citation from teh news you just added follows the neutral phrase halt indian advance as there were heavy losses on both sides. i expect you to self revert following wp:NPOV --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Successfully" is adverb to the halt (which did take place) and not to all the details that happened. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Prognosticca?

I'm very impressed that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was able to supply so much information about a battle that happened in 1965. Those are some mad prophecy skills.

(If some spoilsport has removed the {{1911POV}} tag since I wrote this, please forgive the lack of entertainment provided by this comment.)

--Specrat (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

hahahaha.... good one ......

I have removed it.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

muslims and communists reject wikipedia

i hav been studying wikipedia for the last 1 yr. simultaneously i hav also been studying pakistani and indian sources alonge with some neutral ones. theres a huge difference! indian claims r loud hailing supported by pictures of just 3 battles asal uttar,jarpal and longewala which they mention again and again to mak others believ their victory and wiki follows suite under estimating chummb,jurian,chawinda,sialkot,khemkaran,kushtia,lahore etc. the same is the case with communists who r constatnly targetted. plz pakistanis and arabs and communists leave this wikipedia its a non-neutral heavily zionist and indian biased site. its no encyclopedia.anyone can mak a page of wikiedia. and for wikipedia keep on propagating zionist and indian claims btw u cant re write history, we r arent tat spineless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.5.25 (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

article is biased

the article is only giving indian info. indian losses r told as 120,tats not a neautral source this was told by maj.gen.rajinder singh sparrow commander indian 1st armd. division. secondly a single pakistani armd.regt stands at 40 tanks so how did the indians destroy 44 tanks out of 40 of 25th cavalry. indian losses were 200 tanks destroyed and even the foreign journalists visiting the rejion had no doubt to this. the battle ended in no tactical stalemate as the indians completely withdrew across the ceasefire-line and the battle in all terms ended in a pakistani victory. the role of the PAF is also nt discussed. the article is completely silent abt pakistani gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.1.245 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that u do more research on indo pak war...this article is indeed baised as it shows pakistani perspective..120 tanks were claimed destryed not by rajinder singh sparrow, they were claimed by pakistan as told by steve Zaloga in his book'The M47 and M48 Patton tanks By Steve Zaloga, Jim Laurier ISBN 1855328259, 9781855328259 pg.35.' A pakistani tank regiment does not have 40 tanks but has 44 tanks, indian tank regiments have 45 tanks.. on the first day of the battle chawinda was defended by not only 25 cavalry but by 22 cavalry and 10(guides)cavalry and a total of 132 tanks against Indias 200 tanks...India claimed 29 tanks lost and 41 damaged which were repaired after the war.Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i find no source which says tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 cavalry on the first day of the battle of chawinda. GOC 6 Armoured Division Major General Abrar Hussain now firmly resolved to make the final stand at Chawinda.Abrar made the following readjustments on 12th September:- (1) Remnants of 11 Cavalry to collect south of Chawinda (2) 25 Cavalry to move forward to Chawinda (3) 14 FF to move to Chawinda (4) 24 Brigade to move to Chawinda (5) 14 Para Brigade to move to Zafarwal from Pasrur......... and all this happened on 12th not 8th wen thebattle began. i dnt see any point tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 lancers! instead brig.abdul ali malik asked lt.col.nisar ahmad khan CO 25 cavalry to do "something". Nisar immediately ordered tank squadron (B Squadron) commanded by Major Ahmad (originally from Guides Cavalry and an extremely brave leader of men) to advance in an extended order towards Charwa the reported point of enemy breakthrough!After tasking one of the squadrons to advance towards Charwa Nisar alerted the remaining part of the regiment to move towards Chawinda. At 0730 hours Nisar sent another squadron (A Squadron) towards Tharoah on receiving reports that Indian armour was seen opposite Tharoh area. At 1130 hours Nisar sent ‘A’ Squadron to area west of Gadgor.In short by 1200 hours the whole of 25 Cavalry was deployed three squadrons in line abreast opposite the Indian 1st Armoured Brigade leading the advance of the Indian 1st Armoured Division........ what proof hav u got tat 25 cavalry was supported by 10 guides and 22 cavalry on the first day. and zaloga? ill dig his "neutral" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.126.58 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsurd

This is a complete absurd change that has been recently made to the article. The battle of chawinda indeed ended in a pakistani victory and lasted from 13-21 september and not 17 september. A neutral reference of Steve j zaloga is given not prefrence against an indian leader's personel war diary. Making such changes is a mere intellectual murder and very poor will to accept reality. It was a battle and not "kabhi saas bhi baaho thi" serial. Calling it vandalism is a joke since improving articles in wikipedia were perhaps appreciated. thank you. 175.110.189.207 (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your comment here. The matter has been thoroughly checked by editors from various books, the operations in the Sialkot sector and Chawinda continued till 22 Dec (i.e. the calling of cease fire). Even Zaloga does not claim that it was a pakistani victory. Zaloga says that both sides suffered heavy casualties in the war. Please recheck your sources again before you make such claims. Thanks. Regards. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Result of Battle was Ceasefire

Stop Adding Successful to the Result of the battle without proper source, as of now the source only says that the battle had ended due to ceasefire. Do not edit war and restore false version. unless you have proper sources to back up your claim. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not entirely correct. Sources say that Pakistan successfully halted the Indian advance and that a great many Indian tanks were destroyed in the battle. It is regarded successful from that point of view. I think TopGun, who has been active here, might be watchlisting this. We'll wait and get his perspective on the issue too. I am saying this taking into account the discussion between you and TopGun above as well as the extensive discussion in the decisive victory thread at the top of the talk page. You may not enforce your version until there's an agreement reached here. Mar4d (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If the source currently used says the battle ended in a ceasefire then so should the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Mar4d That arguement is pure WP:SYNTHESIS --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, India failed to achieve the objectives. Read my previous replies to you again. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither did India fail nor was Pakistan successful because Battle of Chawinda Ended due to Ceasefire,(as mentioned in the sources). Now as I see you have no source to offer in support of your Synthesis so either do a self revert or I am reverting to the correct version myself. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

allens source does not say Pak victory, The was no earlier consensus, and I was waiting for a better source and there is none. as discussed on talk . Stop reverting without discussion. Now you have changed the content to Pakistani victory ? without even properly sourcing. Kindly refrain from this--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• @DBig: The source is very clear as far as Indian performance/losses in the battle are concerned. Kindly refrain from reverting without further discussion. Btw, John Fricker is not a "Pak-based author". One more thing, the ceasefire came after Pakistani forces halted the advance, so please stop putting the ceasefire as the first bullet point in the "results" and relegating the sentence "Pakistan successfully halts Indian advance" as second bullet point. That makes the chronology sound incorrect. Mar4d (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• DannyDoesia is an obvious sock of Nangparbat, I have reverted his usual edit warring can someone please post a source which says this was a victory and not a stalemate. Darkness Shines (talk),

• DS all the sources say that both sides suffered losses here and the article has a source that clearly states during the operations a Ceasefire was called, and no clear victory or defeat was claimed by anyone, but Mar4d is arguing without any source and by the basis of his WP:SYNTHESIS showing no concerns for WP:V--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)