Talk:Battle of Chawinda/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: What was the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is best described as a no consensus. The numbers are more or less even, and the two sides' positions are not entirely refuted by the other side. Those voting to label it a Pakistani victory said that RS agreed that India failed to advance its military objectives, and Pakistan advanced theirs. Those opposing the label say that the best available sources do not explicitly label it a "Pakistani victory"; many of these editors also believed that reliable sources find the battle to be inconclusive. Ultimately there was disagreement on what the consensus of reliable, scholarly sources is.

The question then posed is what this no consensus result means -- does it revert to the 2015 RfC or the 2018 talk page discussion. Following the 2018 talk discussion, the "Inconclusive" result seems to have been stable for the longest period of time, but was subject to frequent edit wars, with several editors blocked for sockpuppetry. It also has to be noted that the article is not overly active, and changes can be missed. Generally, consensus reached in discussions that are more widely advertised, to a broader range of editors, and received a higher degree of participation (typically RfCs), take priority over a talk page discussion of a small number of involved participants. However, consensus can change. Given that for three years the RfC consensus has not been enforced and has actively been defied, I'm minded to consider it obsolete. However it's a tricky one; the sources cited in the article are all - bar one - pre-2015, so the argument advanced by some participants that this change in consensus is due to newer sources does not seem to hold water. On balance, I'd say the status quo is "Inconclusive", also considering the slightly greater numbers for that position in this discussion, but I'd suggest a wider policy discussion, or review at AN, for discussion of this point if this determination is disputed.

Finally, on a personal note, I don't know whether editors have considered this, but it may be smarter to drop the "____ victory"/"Inconclusive" label altogether and just bullet point the clear verifiable outcomes. Surely all military articles don't require a 'X side won' label. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

---

In 2015, the community decided at this RfC that Pakistan won the Battle of Chawinda. Pro-Indian editors disputed the RfC outcome on the administrator's noticeboard, and the outcome of this RfC close review was to confirm the Pakistani victory. In 2018, a talk page consensus decided that the battle was "inconclusive". At issue in this RfC is the question of which of the previous consensuses takes precedence.

Note: The Battle of Chawinda was the final engagement of the Second Kashmir War. It is common ground that the Second Kashmir War was inconclusive. The decision needed here is not about the outcome of the campaign, but the outcome of this particular battle within it.

Procedurally speaking, there is dispute about whether RfC nominators should sign their nomination. I'm choosing to sign this one.—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• WT:MILHIST notified.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: where is there a dispute about nominators signing their noms? - wolf 16:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Thewolfchild: Here, for example.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I would point to the guidance at MOS:MIL#Infobox templates that gives force to Template:Infobox military conflict and the guidance therein, in respect to the result parameter. It specifically limits the options that should be used. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (What was the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda?)

• Pakistani victory. A quick skim of some sources reinforces those cited above and it seems to be fairly clear. The sources agree that in this battle the Indians failed to achieve their objectives and the Pakistanis succeeded in achieving theirs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the status-quo as is. Borne out by multiple reliable sources. And when a consensus has been changed, it goes without saying that the new one takes precedence, moreso when it has enjoyed wide acceptance. More particularly, the latter discussion dismissed as unreliable the very sources that the RFC took for granted, and no argument seems to have been made against that. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, let's make that now. The talk page discussion was initiated by Indian editor Razer2115, who contended that: (1) A source was unreliable because that source was itself based on Pakistani sources (but he doesn't say why he believes that, or how it affects the source's reliability); (2) The fact that a source says it was a "debacle" for India doesn't mean that Pakistan won (a pathetic argument that we can safely disregard); (3) He couldn't find the Zaloga source, so it should be inadmissible (which is directly counter to our core verifiability policy, see WP:SOURCEACCESS); and (4) the Amin source is unreliable because it's by a foreign policy specialist rather than a military one (even though his own argument is that the battle was ended by a UN-mandated ceasefire). With these four rather dubious points, there was agreement from Indian editor RaviC, confirmed sockpuppet MyLord, Indian editor Sdmarathe, editor of undisclosed nationality 1990'sguy, Indian editor Adamgerber80, and Indian editor DBigXray. In other words, that whole discussion consisted of Indian editors deciding that India hadn't lost, on the basis of arguments that the previous and much more thorough RfC had already examined and rejected.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Read WP:ASPERSIONS. Your analysis of peoples' comments based on their nationalities is violates WP:DE as well. What really matters is that comments by these users outweigh your grossly misleading personal views and you have provided no rebuttal for that so far. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am well aware of those rules, and it is clearly neither disruptive nor racist to point out that everyone who doesn't think India lost the battle is Indian.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you also including reliable sources that don't say Pakistan won this battle? In any case, your aspersions are indeed getting more disrupted since you are coming off as a case of WP:CIR. You should WP:LISTEN to what others say instead of double downing with baseless aspersions. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, bluelinking CIR in response to that? Just... wow.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Indian defeat (or Pakistani victory) per independent sources cited by S Marshall. Sources agree that Pakistan's military did not yield Chawinda to India's military. Sources also agree that India's military did not attack and hold Chawinda. Not one editor has been able to produce any reliable source that disputes these two facts. So while the war's result was inconclusive, the Battle of Chawinda was a clear victory for Pakistan defeat for India. So to answer the RfC's question, it is the 2015 consensus that should take precedence and be upheld. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to infobox. The fighting was ended by a UN-brokered cease-fire, as per this book (p.160) by Jeremy Black, about as reliable as they come. Neither side seems to have scored a definitive victory, unlike the case in regard to the battle at Asal Uttar, where the "Indian Centurions defeated the 264 tanks of Pakistan's First Armored Division, mostly Pattons", as Black states on the same page in his book. While the Pakistanis did put up a comparatively better show at Chawinda, as Black notes, none of these many sources have interpreted that to be a victory for Pakistan. The Indians continued to camp therein and continued to have possession of more than 500 square kilometers of Pakistani territory in that area. Regards, Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Inconclusive Firstly, we must disentangle what the sources say about this particular battle from the greater campaign. Defence is one of the four phases of war. A victory is not achieved from defence but from subsequent counter-attack. A failure to achieve the objectives of an attack "may" constitute a defeat for the attacker but does not necessarily constitute a victory for a defender. However, this is not for us to determine but for the sources to determine. Further, it is not for us to reach conclusions such as: when author X says such-and-such, he was meaning that it was a victory for Y. It is not up to us to put words into the mouth of a source because of how we might interpret their meaning. That would be WP:SYNTH. Stating that an outcome is "inconclusive" is less problematic if the consensus of sources is not to attribute victory to one side or the other.

The role of the infobox is to summarise the article. The outcome should be discussed in the "aftermath" section (or similar), where the views expressed in reliable sources can be summarised. Where there are conflicting views of the result, a balanced account should be given, including the reasons given in the sources for reaching different conclusions. This has not occurred in this article. Further, it is not the role of the infoxbox to be a substitute for this. There are some six sources cited in respect to the result in the infobox and only one specifically refers to an Indian defeat (but not a Pakistani victory). Unfortunately, I was only able to see a snippet of the text in Google Books and couldn't determine the context of the statement. If we were to report this as a "Pakistani victory" it should reflect the consensus among authors of good quality reliable sources that explicitly describe it as a victory. This is not the case. On the otherhand, the consensus of the sources is that it was "inconclusive", being both explicitly stated and because a victory is not explicitly stated. In any case, the body of the article should be improved in respect to the outcome, in which case, "see Aftermath" could be a better option. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Your explanation appears to be very... wanting. A victory is not achieved from defence ..., and yet there are literally thousands of times in the past when it was a good defense that led to victory for the defenders. ... failure to achieve the objectives of an attack "may" constitute a defeat for the attacker but does not necessarily constitute a victory for a defender. Sorry, but that also is a ??? in my book. And it is not WP:SYNTH to conclude that when sources say "Pakistan's military did not yield Chawinda to India's military," and "India's military did not attack, take and hold Chawinda" that India's military was defeated and Pakistan's military was victorious. Nobody's putting words in the mouths of the reliable sources, which are crystal clear on these two facts. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wanting? A good defence can lead to victory - when it is followed by attack. In this instance, the counter-attack was curtailed. If "victory" is winning; "not loosing" is not the same as victory. There are semantics as to what constitutes victory and these are for the sources to determine when ascribing victory to one side or another - if they do. It is clear that the Indian attack failed but no good quality sources explicitly describe this as a Pakistani victory. The statement is: ...when sources say "Pakistan's military did not yield Chawinda to India's military," and "India's military did not attack, take and hold Chawinda" that India's military was defeated and Pakistan's military was victorious. By this, a WP editor is observing facts and applying criteria that they have chosen to reach a conclusion. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Let's say you lived in a castle, and surrounding that castle were an army that wants your castle. To take your castle would be pivotal in a greater war your people are having with that army's country. But your army successfully wards off any sign of attack by the other army. You soon learn that the other country has asked for an armistice to end the war, and you and all in your castle agree to it. Would you not be celebrating that evening? What would you be celebrating? a tie? No, you would be celebrating the fact that you held onto your castle against the invading army. You would celebrate a victory in the battle to save your castle, and you would celebrate the fact that you did not lose the overall war, which will go down in history as "inconclusive". Your victory to save your castle was the decisive factor in stopping the overall war! Chawinda was like your castle, a clearcut victory that led to cessation of hostilities. That is precisely what objective people understand when they read the reliable sources about the Battle of Chawinda. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

By this medieval "castle theory", we would have to describe the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 as a victory for India since it protected its "castle" from a Pakistani invasion. But we don't do that. We call it a "stalemate". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Not according to the reliable sources. Those describe Chawinda in terms of the medieval "castle theory", and then they go on to say that India, rather than do the "unwise" thing and pursue Chawinda, petitioned the UN to declare a stalemate. The Chawinda "castle dwellers" agreed to it, which according to reliable sources resulted in an "inconclusive" end of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The Chawinda "castle dwellers'" victory in battle brought about the cessation of violence for a time. On these matters the reliable sources are crystal clear, and anyone who can read with understanding would be able to discern this. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so, it is the UN that declared a "stalemate". Little do I know! But by what definition of "reliable sources" are these sources unreliable? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter how I, as the castellan, view my successful defence of the castle. What matters here is how it is judged by history as reported in (good quality) reliable sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pakistan victory.Based on the above discussion I agree that Pakistan won the battle of Chawinda. Successfully defending and winning a battle are the same. Markewilliams (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pakistan victory. Reported by reliable sources on how the battle unfolded. Sea Ane (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• They don't. You are engaging in WP:TE with that misrepresentation. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Inconclusive. I would be less than frank if I did not say I am thoroughly unimpressed with the hollow arguments provided by the supporters of Pakistani victory above. Elements of victory and defeat are difficult to define, especially when it comes to battles like this one that ends with a formal ceasefire, but it's most certainly not our job to make those judgments by drawing inferences or making our own interpretations but that of the historians... Aman goel provides an excellent source that in no uncertain terms state that the battle of Chawinda ended only with the ceasefire, but does not state that it resulted in a Pakistani victory. The infobox sources do make those judgments--that the battle's outcome was inconclusive or indecisive. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Maintain status-quo was a nightmare before any change without real new sources would again put the article back to dark ages, the current version seems fine --Shrikanthv (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pakistani victory, as agreed in the previous RfC.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• You can do better than agreeing with yourself given the WP:BADNAC was done by you. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Others have suggested that my previous close was bad, which is why the community reviewed it here. You will note from that diff that my close was unanimously confirmed on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I put it to you that the Pakistani victory was the only possible policy-compliant outcome of that discussion. There was prolific socking on both sides, but I found it particularly ironic that User:OccultZone removed a bunch of sock comments that favoured Pakistan just before closure. Naturally, he allowed the edits by his own socks, User:VandVictory, User:నిజానికి, and User:SamuelDay1, to stand. I certainly agree with you that this article has a long history of bad faith editing, which is why this discussion will require closure by a previously uninvolved closer of great experience and wisdom.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, most people agreed that Pakistan didn't win the battle and Faizan (a prolific sockmaster who is still blocked) voted to support your closure which tells a lot. Given your deep feelings about the subject, you were the wrong person to close the discussion. If you really know the meaning of unanimously then consider Talk:Battle_of_Chawinda/Archive_2#Result reading this discussion where there was unanimous agreement that infobox must not mislead readers with unsourced and misleading opinions and given its longevity it easily outweighs the outdated and poorly closed RfC. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Six years ago when I closed that, I knew nothing about the Battle of Chawinda and indeed I'd never heard of the Second Kashmir War. I had never edited in the topic area. During the course of my close, I read the sources presented, and since then, I have been required to defend my close. In the process of doing so, I have read enough text about the matter to become educated about it, and I have noticed that the better sources that are actually about this battle (rather than the campaign) describe it as a "debacle" or a "bloodbath" for the Indian army. I do think that this means India lost, and I do think that's the same as saying that Pakistan won; but some years ago when I closed the RfC that you wish to overturn, I had not formed that view. It was appropriate and reasonable for me to close it at the time.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Stalemate/Inconclusive Lack of reliable sources term it as a victory for either countries. That said, the overall victor of the war was India but this battle was a clear stalemate. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Inconclusive I fail to see any convincing proof that "Pakistan victory" is the consensus of independent reliable sources (which is what NPOV would require). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pakistani victory It makes more sense. Like all individual battles, each one's accurate outcome should be noted, even if the overall average of an entire war is different from the individual battle.--AdillAdell (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Inconclusive or Stalemate - "Battle of Chawinda" does not necessarily mean a "Battle for Chawinda". The Indian forces were interested in occupying as much Pakistani territory as they could, in order to use it as a bargaining counter during later negotiations. The Pakistani forces were obviously interested in blocking them. The clash happened to take place at Chawinda, but Chawinda itself was not a goal of any kind. The Indians could not take Chawinda. Their advance got halted. These facts are not contested. But neither were they "beaten" so as to allow the Pakistanis to take back their territory. Whatever territory the Indians occupied prior to Chawinda, they continued to hold until the negotiations. Pakistan agreed generally with the depth of penetration claimed by India. So, this fact is also not disputed. All that is disputed is the meaning of the battle.

The Pakistanis and their partisans want to make representations to imply that Pakistan was winning and it was India that was saved by the ceasefire. The facts do not bear this out. The US defense attaché in Karachi argued, “if the Indians press their attacks, the Pakistanis will be faced with the possibility of a complete and humiliating collapse of their army and air craft.” The press conference of Pakistani president on 15 September instead of showing a defiant and resolute stance, degenerated into Ayub appealing for Johnson and the US government to intervene in the dispute. This appeal showed clearly to the world that Pakistan was now desperate to end the war despite all its official statements to date. In the end, Pakistan accepted an unconditional ceasefire, the only kind of ceasefire India would agree to.

Three scholarly sources have been provided for stating it as a stalemate, including a Pakistani analyst. The corresponding sources provided for Pakistani victory are weak in my view. Zaloga's coverage is quite wrong in details, as explained below under Sources, and the other two sources make only vague statements. In the overall context of the war, this battle is what broke Pakistan's resolve to continue fighting. And that is all that mattered for India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Note added: I do not regard the old 2015 RfC as valid any more since the state of knowledge has improved (both among scholars and Wikipedians). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Inconclusive Special care should be taken cases were a winner is not clear and in this case it is indeed inconclusive. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Stalemate. The sources that User:Kautilya3 mentioned just above suggest just that. I don't see how it can be a Pakistani victory (even though Indian forces were halted) when India captured Pakistani territory. Clearly wasn't a victory at either end. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Inconclusive. No evidence that Chawinda was a Pakistani victory. Of note is that reliable sources have overwhelmingly called this battle to be inconclusive or indecisive, and rightly so. The Pakistanis did not gain anything from the long-drawn out fighting on this front, which was brought to an end by the ceasefire brokered by the UN. Both sides suffered heavy casualties.[1][2] The Pakistani army did not rescue its territory from the clutches of the Indian army, which indisputably brought Pakistan to its knees in the later negotiations as it accepted the Tashkent Agreement, which entailed having a return to the status quo, which was a far cry from Pakistan's declared war aims, and consequently brought loss of face to the Pakistani state. SignificantPBD (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Pakistani victory, per several editors above. Idealigic (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Inconclusive. The assessment that the battle was inconclusive is borne out by reliable scholarly sources, so this really is a no brainer. Wikipedia cannot differ from the scholarly sources in stating the outcome. Scholarly accounts of the war have invariably focused on the fighting in the Sialkot theatre, for it was here that the Indian thrust had been relentless, cutting through the Pakistani defences, and in the process carrying the war deep into the territory of West Pakistan, eventually culminating in the Battle of Chawinda. This backdrop alone demands that people who hold strong views on the question either one way or the other provide reliable scholarly sources that unambiguously support the position they assert in this consensus building discussion. Surprisingly enough, and telling at the same time, the protagonist of Pakistani victory have so far failed to come up with any reliable scholarly source with respect to thier claim concerning the outcome of the battle. Indeed, the hollowness of thier argument is most soundingly betrayed by their resort to WP:OR. This utter inability to provide sources is telling and indicative of the fact that the notion of Pakistani victory has no support in reliable sources. Indeed, historians have written at length about the Battle of Chawinda, and yet not one of them have considered the battle to be a Pakistani victory. The view is simply not supported by scholars.
  On the other hand, we are looking at the scholarly sources that unambiguously state that a ceasefire put an end to the fighting on this front, and that the results were inconclusive. So where is the dispute to be found? Certainly, there were other aspects of the Battle of Chawinda. The Pakistani forces had been rendered unable to mount any counter-attack, which only worked in India's favour. By the time the United Nations cease-fire came into effect, and the fighting ended, India had overrun in excess of 500 square kilometres of Pakistani territory in Sialkot. This broke the back of Pakistan, as it ended up losing vast tracts of territory to India left, right, and centre. Heck, it seems to have lost almost everywhere it fought. India, on the other hand, had been clearly rewarded.[3]
  To reiterate, the thrust of my argument is that no reliable scholarly source has considered this battle to be a Pakistani victory, whereas those that have considered the battle to be inconclusive, and explicitly so, exist in plenty. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Pakistani victory This is really a no-brainer and should have long been reversed to the longstanding consensus of 2015, as the 2018 discussion was anything but that (partisan votes and "orchestrated" discussions maketh not consensus). As the nom. S Marshall points out, the lack of participation in that discussion is telling. No matter which source you read, the literature is unanimously clear that the Indians not only sustained heavy losses in Chawinda, but failed above and beyond to meet the objectives they had set forth in the leadup to that offensive. One example of blatant source misrepresentation is the "territorial changes" claim in the infobox, as the 460 square kilometres being referred to was the total area ceded in all of Sialkot sector. Yet, here we have the hilarious claim being made that Pakistan lost this territory in the Chawinda battle, with a source that evidently makes no mention of Chawinda (double whammy). With such glaring errors, it's not hard to deduct at face value the merit of the arguments which seem to want to portray a rose-tinted alternate reality, including the extremely weak and flawed points made below. The fact is, I have yet to come across a single source, based on sound, reliable evidence even after all these years, that actually says the Indians suffered anything short of an effective defeat at Chawinda, or that they did not perform poorly when mounted with the Pakistani counterattack. It is self-explanatory as below and in many other sources:

During the Battle of Chawinda, the largest armoured engagement since Kursk, Pakistani forces halted an Indian invasion of their country. In September 1965, the Pakistanis blunted a thrust by the Indian 1st Armored Division as each side fielded more than 250 tanks. Pakistani armor included the M48 and improved Sherman tanks of World War II vintage, while the Indians committed both Centurions and Shermans to the fight. When it was over, the Pakistanis had lost an estimated 44 tanks, while the Indians suffered up to 120 destroyed, although they later asserted that they had lost only 29 armored vehicles.

Indian sources such as Abhyankar and Proudfoot, whose research is also widely used by M.A. Zaki in a paper for IDSA (article), acknowledge Chawinda as a "failure" and "unsuccessful" operation for India.

In the overall context, the Chawinda attack was a failure and in the confusion after an unsuccessful operation, the valour of those who fought and died went unheard and unsung. But in the Regiment, the battle of Chawinda will always be remembered and honoured as one more example of bravery in the unending saga of Maratha chivalry.

Grauer characterises Chawinda as a defensive victory favouring Pakistan:

Among the notable defensive victories, however, were the Soviet defeat of the Japanese at Changkufeng Hill in 1938, Japan's repeated failures to retake Henderson Field on Guadalcanal between August and November 1942, the Indian failure to defeat the Pakistanis in the tank battle at Chawinda in the 1965 war fought between those countries, and Egypt and Syria's ultimately unsuccessful assaults on Israel through the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War.

Bajwa, published by Hurst, notes the Indian command referred to Chawinda as a disaster:

...with their successful defence of Chawinda, and the Indians' inability to take the town must have been demoralising for the troops. The casualties inflicted on Indian troops in the last assault on 19 September effectively meant that 1 Armoured Division was also no longer able to carry out major offensive operations from that date. It appears that tensions amongst the senior commanders of this operation did not assist and it seems that there was also a failure to command from the front, from brigade commanders down. The Indian commander on the whole western front was highly critical of his own forces: 'an indifferent leadership made disaster inevitable' (H. Singh, 157).

Spencer C. Tucker, in his A Global Chronology of Conflict, concludes that while the 1965 war ended days later in a ceasefire without decisive results, Pakistan was the major victor in Chawinda:

The Indians then reinforce and push the Pakistanis back to their base at Chawinda, where the Indians are again halted on September 10. After the Indians defeat a counterattack, the Pakistanis take up defensive positions. Both sides now reinforce. Although the Indians substantially outnumber the Pakistanis in manpower, many of the Pakistani tanks are superior to those of the Indians, and their artillery has greater range. The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border. Pakistan is the victor in the battle. Its army has prevented the Indians from achieving their objective of capturing Sialkot and cutting the main Grand Trunk Road, which would have cut Pakistan in two.

If we look at commentaries (for the sake of discussion), e.g. The Guardian's piece on Hamid Gul:

As a tank commander in the 1965 war with India over Kashmir, he was credited with contributing to a Pakistani victory at the battle of Chawinda, holding back the Indian offensive towards Sialkot.

Independent:

He was credited with contributing to what has been regarded as a victory for Pakistan in the Battle of Chawinda, by holding back the Indian offensive towards Sialkot. The action has been described as the greatest tank battle since the Second World War, and Pakistan commentators called it “the graveyard of Indian tanks”. Hostilities were ended by a UN ceasefire.

The Diplomat:

The Indian and Pakistani armies fought each other another 15 days, during the course of which both armies won their share of tactical victories — India in Phillora and Khem Karan, Pakistan in Chawinda — but none decisive enough to alter the ultimate result of the war. A ceasefire was called by the UN on September 22 and the Tashkent Declaration was signed between Ayub and Shastri in January 1966, thus bringing an end to hostilities.

etc. Mar4d (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Just noting that the Haskew source is just recycling Zaloga's numbers from 1980. Whereas Zaloga stated them as Pakistani claims, this man is taking them to be fact. He hasn't even noticed that Higgins updated the count. None of these tank pundits is really reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • My dear Kautilya3. Given your extremely weak rebuttals to the source material below, if I were you, I'd first focus on drawing the line between what the sources unanimously agree upon and the one thing they all get right (that it was an Indian defeat, as plain as daylight!) and only then worry about the inconsequentialities (whether India lost 20 tanks, 120 or 200 for that matter). You remind me of the post-independence babus who, after the colonisers left the subcontinent with pockets full, were only left wondering whether they were economically better off or worse off (after all the loot and plunder!). Let the experts determine the latter. You are engaging in directionless original research and WP:FORUM, which is adding zero to the discussion about the battle result, which is what this this is precisely about. Mar4d (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Let me also just point out that Spencer Tucker does not actually ascribe victory to Pakistan. Quite to the contrary, he writes: On September 6, however, India sent some 900,000 men across the border into Pakistan. Superior numbers soon told. In one of the largest tank battles in history, the Indians defeated the Pakistanis at Chawinda (September 14– 19) and reached Lahore, claiming to have destroyed 300 Pakistani tanks in the process.[4] The link that Mar4d provides above looks like a copy of an old newspaper article from wartime itself, written in present tense, and not Tucker's own words. Besides, the same article goes on to note, in sharp contradiction on the same page, and this he did not mention, "The Pakistanis have suffered major losses themselves; however, they have also been unable to inflict a decisive defeat on the Indians".[5] It also undermines its own credibility when it claims that "The Pakistanis are ultimately able to push most of the Indian forces back across the international border", which undoubtedly gainsays the gains of India's 1 Corps in the Sialkot theatre. Whereas Grauer not only completely fails WP:RSCONTEXT, but also his one-liner does not tantamount to a Pakistani victory, especially read together with the available reliable scholarly commentary.
    So none of those sources have ascribed to Pakistan the victory in the Battle of Chawinda, and that is indeed rather telling. The Indian failure to break through the Pakistani defences at Chawinda is not itself in dispute. But the battle had many aspects. The Indian thrust, which culminated at Chawinda, had gone deep into West Pakistan. The Pakistanis themselves had been rendered unable to push back the Indians from what was their own territory. India held onto its gains, and that is all that mattered in the long run.[6] Mind you that the scholarly sources in no uncertain terms have concluded that the fighting, which ended with the ceasefire, was inconclusive or indecisive. This inability to confute arguments that have already been advanced quite clearly stems from an inability to understand other people's arguments and what the sources actually say. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You do realise, don't you, that Tucker is ascribing to Indian claims in the same passage when he quotes the figure of 300 Pakistani tanks? The passage that I shared is not a newspaper clipping. It is actually from Tucker's publication which is a listing of various military conflicts, and uses present tense for other events on the same page/s. The passage I shared is actually more comprehensive in stating so the reason for the Pakistani victory, which was the inability of the Indians to capture Sialkot and cutting access through the Grand Trunk Road. The passage you quoted is highlighting the Indians' numerical superiority right up until the ceasefire which isn't even debatable. So, quoting Spencer once again, and combined with the preponderance of sources (see WP:WEIGHT), my point still stands. Mar4d (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also adding excerpts from Cloughley, who devotes a detailed section to Chawinda in his book. This is a good source that goes into depth regarding the Pakistani clearance operation, and agrees with the above.

The Indians knew it was essential for them to take Chawinda; the Pakistanis knew that if they did, the ground between Lahore and Sialkot would open up for their further advance as there were no forces available for defence further west. On 12 September the Pakistanis tried without success to retake Phillora, and next day the Indians attempted to outflank Chawinda from the east but, in an impressive display of flexibility, the Pakistanis moved 19 and 20 Lancers and 1 FF (of 1 Armd. Div.) to its defence, and the Indian advance was halted after fierce fighting... An attack against Chawinda was planned for the 14th, but in a classic employment of good intelligence and efficient artillery the Pakistanis located the forming-up place of the Garhwali battalion that was to lead the assault and brought fire down on it. The battalion was forced to withdraw and the attack did not take place... On the night of 15/16 September the Indians again tried to outflank the main Pakistani force, this time by pressing west to Jassoran... then south to cut off Chawinda from the rear. Once the village was isolated, the Indians considered it would fall... but their armour was engaged so heavily by Pakistani anti-tank weapons that it could not advance further. The battalion held out until 17 September, when it was forced to withdraw to Jassoran...

Mar4d (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Inconclusive or Stalemate. It seems to be the majority opinion, and for a reason. Having followed the discussion, and observed folks who have demonstrated that they have done a great deal of digging and ruminating and come to a reasoned conclusion that the battle did not yield a clear winner, I do not see a reason to not think in the same direction, for their arguments seem convincingly puissant. The fact that this battle took place deep inside Pakistani territory means that "halting Indian advance" cannot be the same as saying the "Pakistani won", particularly when one ruminates the fact that the Pakistani forces could not and did not endeavour to push back the Indians. The reliable sources do not say that the Pakistanis defeated the Indians. But they are unequivocal in saying that the battle was a stalemate and ended with a truce. Kerberous (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Would hopefully like to help out the closer on this issue and ask some questions. This is not to generate more opinions on the matter, it's just to clarify what the outcome will be when this RfC closes. This RfC began as the direct result of previous talks above it. We are asked to choose between the RfC consensus of 2015 (which upheld the Battle of Chawinda as a victory for Pakistan) or the more recent discussion of 2018 (which decided to call the battle result "inconclusive" in the same manner as the war's outcome itself was inconclusive). It does not look like this RfC has come to much of an agreement on this matter, and I'm curious to find out what that "no consensus" actually means. Does it mean that the stronger consensus of 2015 should outweigh that of 2018? or will "no consensus" mean that the 2018 discussion's result will continue to prevail? Again, these questions are rhetorical and just try to sum up what may happen when this RfC closes. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Most people who commented here answered the question, "What was the result of Battle of Chawinda?" (posed at the top). I agree that the OP made some comments about the old RfC etc. But they are of no consequence because no RfC and no consensus is ever permanent. New information becomes available, new sources get written, and new editors come in and bring new expertise. I don't believe the old RfC and its result have any bearing on this one. The old discussion 2018 also has no bearing on it. We are looking at the question afresh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the OP made some comments about the old RfC etc. But they are of no consequence [...]

Beg to differ – the OP was specific with At issue in this RfC is the question of which of the previous consensuses takes precedence. I'd say that puts the old 2015 RfC and the 2018 discussion right at the focus of this RfC, which makes my questions quite valid, thank you very much. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: They don't. Surely Pakistan had no objective of losing more land to India and also suffering more casualties than India. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To editor Slatersteven: RS say two pertinent facts: 1) Pakistan's military held on to and did not cede Chawinda to India's military, and 2) India's military did not attack and take Chawinda. Those two facts are not in dispute among reliable sources. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any RS declare who won?Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it's described by the Canberra Times as a Pakistani victory, but in my 2015 RfC close I decided to give that source less weight because there are book sources written by specialists. Here it's described as a "bloodbath" for the Indian army. This is disputed by some editors who don't think that means India lost, or who think that India losing doesn't mean Pakistan won. I have been accused of incompetence and disruptive behaviour, above, for pointing out that all the editors who think this are Indian. Here it's described as inconclusive. There's also a source by renowned tank pundit S. J. Zaloga, which isn't currently available online, that describes a "debacle" for the Indian army that was halted by a ceasefire, but it's disputed whether Zaloga was talking about the Battle of Chawinda as a whole or a single engagement within it.—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Where on earth does the Canberra Times describe the battle to be a Pakistani victory? It had but reported the sequence of events as told by the Pakistani commanders while the battle was still going on: "Pakistan troops were reported confident today of scoring a major victory in the Sialkot sector, where bitter fighting between Indian and Pakistani tanks continues." So are you trying to deceive people by spouting such misleading falsehood? The sources clearly assert that the battle was ended by the ceasefire, so how on earth could a WP:PRIMARY source from a wartime even relevant today? As for John Fricker, he was commissioned by the Pakistani government to write thier history of the war[7], and his book is full of propagandistic statements. He is far from being an independent authority on the war, and anything he says or claims will be taken with a bucket full of salt and grouped under the Pakistani claims wherever deemed necessary, given his association with the Pakistani government. This has been said time and again, so your willingness to resort to prevarications and obfuscation is rather unfortunate. On one hand, you peddle conspiracy theories that "Indians" somehow schemed among themselves to flout the RFC, and established a consensus of their own to get rid of the Pakistani victory in the infobox, which they detested, and on the other you engage in this POV pushing that Pakistan won the battle by using propagandistic Pakistani government sources.The more you speak, the more you betray the hollowness of your argument. You really have no case for changing the consensus. The outcome of the battle has been explicitly deemed to be inconclusive not by one, but multiple reliable sources. About which you have nothing to say. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

(1) An Australian newspaper isn't a primary souce for the outcome of a battle between India and Pakistan. (2) Yes, John Fricker was paid by Pakistan to write an account of the war, and yes, he drew on Pakistani sources. Good sources are written by people who know their subject, and that often means that good sources aren't neutral. As Wikipedians, it's often our job to construct a NPOV article using biased sources. Fricker is perfectly admissible. (3) Please show with diffs any occasion where I have deceived people with misleading falsehood, any occasion where I have resorted to prevarications and obfuscation, and any occasion where I have peddled a conspiracy theory about Indians scheming to subvert the RfC.—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the question you need to answer, instead of denying the very obvious implications, is "Where...does the Canberra Times describe the battle to be a Pakistani victory"? Moreover, a source does not become secondary by its place of origin, but by the independent commentary it offers, which your source does not. While WP:BIASED sources can be used in certain cases with in-text attribution, provided a "level of independence from the topic the source is covering" is ensured, Fricker was hired by the Pakistani military (a belligerent in the war) to write for them. Under such circumstances, it's no longer a matter of just bias, but also that of conflict of interest, which makes Fricker completely inadmissible for making conclusions of victory and defeat as far as the war or for that matter the battle is concerned, if at all he does, for he is bound to glorify his contractors. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'd be very careful about using someone such as Fricker in this case to write objectively about the result of the battle. There's a reason PAID SPA's don't write articles on their subjects that include details of failures and scandals. Since this is about a contentious/disputed battle outcome, his opinion on the matter would need to be attributed in text, I should think, at the very minimum. His opinion is not very good on its own. I have no overall opinion on what this infobox says and am not familiar with the particulars of this case, but I think one would need a better source than Fricker to support making such a claim. And I would remind everyone that "Disputed" is also a relatively acceptable outcome to put in the infobox, with further info included in the article text. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I've almost no involvement in the military history field, but it seems to me someone paid by one side of the conflict for the work in question, no matter how reputable they may be, shouldn't really be taken as an unbiased source. A particular point here which comes from my experience in other areas. This seems to be a reasonably significant part of a very significant war several decades ago. It would seem to me it should be well covered in a lot of different good sources. If the claim being made by Fricker is well supported, it would seem to me it shouldn't be that hard to find one or more better sources. If these can't be found, I would question whether the claim is really well accepted. It's possible there are a variety of different opinions and Fricker's is still significant enough to include, but that would imply there isn't one undisputed outcome and the article would need to properly reflect that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's the largest tank battle since the Second World War. There are, essentially, three categories of sources: Indian historians ("stalemate"), Pakistani historians (who portray it like the stand of the 300 at Sparta), and independent sources that are basically about the tanks. The latter compare the Pakistani tanks which were a mixed bunch of mainly Shermans and Pattons of late WW2 vintage, and the Indian tanks which were also mixed, but generally more modern, and included a substantial number of Centurions, a considerably superior vehicle. The tank pundits are saying that on a comparison of equipment, India should have broken through and swept deep into Pakistan, but didn't. They aren't saying Pakistan won the battle, they're saying that India lost it (with the implication that the cause of this was Indian generals mishandling their armour). In the 2015 RfC I decided that it was better to phrase this as a Pakistani victory than a defeat for India. There's a concerted attempt going on to rule out sources that disfavour one of the sides.—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

So which of these are "Indian historians"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I have now acquired and read through Zaloga and Higgins. Neither of them provides any citations for their claims, which is not surprising since they are not scholarly sources. Moreover, both of them seem to be part of the American defence-industry ecosystem. Zaloga is mentioned as a defence consultant. I couldn't find Higgins' main occupation, but his writings and media work are obviously targeted at the same clientele as that of the defence industry.

Zaloga's book was written in 1980, before any authentic histories became available. And his treatment lacks fidely for the same reason. For instance, he says that Pakistan's 7th Division was defending the area, whereas it was the 15th Division. He himself admits:

Objective assessments of the 1965 war are as yet largely unavailable, and what Indian and Pakistani accounts do exist are as often as not poisoned by propaganda and highly suspect. Particularly contentious are the various claims for enemy tanks destroyed and so forth.

But he doesn't say how he is accounting for the 'highly suspect' propaganda. His coverage is essentially in line with the Pakistani propaganda and, in some cases, goes beyond it. Pakistan's 11th Cavalry, which "ceased to function as a complete regiment" according to a Pakistani analyst, does not even find a mention in Zaloga's coverage. Particularly vicious is his comment:

The Indians made the ludicrous claim of 67 Pakistani tanks destroyed, which was well in excess of the total number in the area at the time.

The Pakistani analyst points out that two tank regiments were operating in the battle (10th and 11th Cavalries), which should have amounted to 88 tanks, not to mention the additional 'tank destroyers' attached to the 11th cavalry. So the supposed reason for the Indian claim being "ludicrous" falls flat.

His summary assessment of the Sialkot front is:

The Pakistanis admitted losing 44 tanks in the Sialkot sector, but claimed 120 Indian tanks, and the British journalists saw no reason to doubt them.

There is no comparable mention of the Indian admissions and claims, let alone any effort to balance the two. In my view, this source is wholly worthless for reporting any judgmental information or even factual information.

Higgins' book is more thorough, being written 2016. Several authentic histories of the Indian account became available by this time, including some serious self-critiques. Much of this self-critique finds its way into Higgins's coverage. However, there is no comparable self-critique of the Pakistani side. So, it leaves one with the impression that the Indians did poorly while the Pakistanis were close to perfect. His summary assessment is:

Outnumbered Pakistani Pattons performed very well with 25th Cavalry and the regiments of 6th Armoured Division, as demonstrated by the division knocking out 180 Indian tanks for the loss of 61 of its own between 10 and 23 September, the latter figure comprising 31 M48s, 17 M47s, nine M36B2s and four Shermans; many of the Indian tanks were Centurions Mk 7s of 17th Horse and 4th Horse.

Notice that the Pakistani toll went up from Zaloga's 44 to 61. So, it appears that some serious accounting information became available in the interim. But, the Indian toll went up proportionately, without any rhyme or reason! This is just formulaic propaganda.

Both the authors know enough to recognize that there is a difference between tanks getting "destroyed" or "damaged". But the benefit of this distinction is applied only to Pakistan. Indian claims of what were destroyed vs. damaged do not even find any mention. Also interesting is the claim that the Pakistani Pattons were "outnumbered", whereas by Higgins' own accounting, Pakistanis were employing four regiments of Pattons against three regiments of Indian Centurions. There is not even a semblance of effort to indicate where the information of "180 Indian tanks getting knocked out" comes from.

On the whole, Higgins too is a partisan source, which can't be used for any judgemental information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Another source touted as supporting the proposition of Pakistani Victory is Shahid R. Amin, a Pakistani foreign policy expert. But Amin is not really claiming Pakistani victory. Here is an extended passage:

The Pakistanis took satisfaction from the performance of their air force as also from many individual acts of gallantry, particularly by the heroic defenders at Chawinda who were able to stop a major Indian thrust. Indeed, judged by a realistic yardstick rather than by romantic expectations of a victory over India, the very fact that Pakistan had been able to hold back a much bigger foe was in itself creditable. Pakistan's relatively good performance was, no doubt, due also to the military aid received from the US in the previous decade, ostensibly to fight communist aggression....

The source is characterising "victory over India" as a romantic expectation, rather than a realistic yardstick. (I whole-heartedly agree that the Pakistani achievement in holding back a much bigger foe is creditable. But that does not amount to a victory.) He himself explains on the next page:

Despite individual gallantry and a good performance by its air force, Pakistan had little to show as its real gains in the 1965 War. 'Operation Gibraltar' was faulty both in conception as well as in implementation. Even worse, Pakistan found itself drawn into a full-scalel war with India that it had not anticipated and for which it was caught unprepared, in the actual fighting the Indians managed to cut deep into the strategic Sialkot sector whereas, at the end of the war, Pakistan was in possession of some desert land. Pakistan's counter-offensive led by its armour failed to make any headway. However, in spite of this, the hype was such that the Pakistani people, by and large, thought that the war was actually being won, when perfidious, or at least weak-hearted, elements in the leadership had halted it prematurely in obedience to US commands.

In this short but brilliant passage, he clarifies that the war was initiated by Pakistan, that it was unprepared for Indian retaliation, that India made deep inroads, that Pakistan could not push it back, but there was hype that convinced the Pakistani people that it had actually won the war! What more do I need to say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps something about how this whole RfC is not about whether or not Pakistan won the "war", hyped and imagined as it might have been by the Pakistani people. This is only about the Battle of Chawinda. There is no argument here about the war itself and its inconclusive outcome. Nor is there much in your gallant effort above that refutes a Pakistani victory at Chawinda. Great effort, though, so thank you for that, sincerely! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The hype about this battle is very much part of the hype about the war, because it was indeed the last stand battle. The hype is very important for Pakistan. Its military has to be always presented as national heroes who are constantly defending the country against the duplicitous India. No politician, no official, no pressperson can go against that and present any facts that might vitiate the heroic image.

But, coming back to the sources, yes, Amin is indeed talking mostly about the entire war rather than the battle. And, for that reason, it is not a good source for claiming anything on this page. The other two (Zaloga and Higgins) have enough coverage of the battle, but their conclusions are dubious, "poisoned by propaganda" as they themselves admit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Then I suggest we go with the independent sources as outlined by S Marshall above and call the battle an "Indian defeat" rather than a "Pakistani victory". I shall amend my rationale. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.