Wikipedia

Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War/Archive 9

< Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War
Latest comment: 3 years ago by ShazidSharif2001 in topic Result of Bangladesh Liberation war
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Request for comment about the result of the war in infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago132 comments33 people in discussion
There's a majority for Indian victory but solid arguments for various variants, and given that this touches on national pride I suspect that the actual consensus is for one of the more nuanced options in the 24 August list. As such I am going to be a little bit bold and close this as no consensus (since many opinions were logged before the 24 Aug revision) and suggest a new RfC with numbered options - I'd be inclined to ask people to rank a small number of options in order. Sorry to further prolong this, but it is clearly not a simple situation. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


What should be the result of the war in infobox?

  • "Bangladeshi victory"
  • "Indian victory"
  • "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"

Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look at the discussion below, the options have become more nuanced than what was originally presented. I have posted below my comment what I think is the full list of options. However feel free to add any other options I missed or new options that are raised before the RfC is closed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. "Bangladeshi victory"
  2. "Indian victory"
  3. "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"
  4. "As a result of the Indian victory, Bangladesh emerged as the third independent state on the subcontinent."
  5. "Pakistani defeat"
  6. "See Aftermath" (or see [other section name]) - an option to point readers to part of the article where the issue can be presented in more detail.
  7. "Pakistani defeat. See Aftermath."

I could propose two more. :D. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  1. Indo-Bangladesh victory
  2. Pakistani surrednder to Indo-Bangladesh joint command

Survey

  • Bangladeshi victory - or "Bangladeshi-allied victory", following the content of American Revolutionary War. The reliable sources describe this as Bangladeshi victory, for example,
  • Maidul Hasan (1986), Muldhara '71, page 207, University Press Limited (UPL). ISBN 978 984 8815 63 2. "পাকিস্তানি কমান্ডের মনোবল সম্পূর্ণ ভেঙ্গে পড়ায় বাংলাদেশের বিজয় সম্পন্ন হয়" (Translation: The complete collapse of Pakistani command's morale led to Bangladesh's victory)
  • In fact, according to Indian General K. K. Singh's assessment, due to India's limitation in troop mobilization in East Pakistan, it was mainly Bangladesh force's contribution that made it possible to achieve victory in the war.
  • Indian General J. F. R. Jacob states, Freedom fighters won the war, not otherwise. General Jacob served as chief of staff of the Indian Army's Eastern Command during the war.
Unlike the other sources shown in the discussion, Muldhara '71 is a highly reliable and one of most definitive academic sources on Bangladesh Liberation War. Regarding Muldhara '71's reliability, below are some of the scholarly sources where the book is cited,
  • Raghavan, Srinath (2013). 1971. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674731295.
  • D'Costa, Bina (2011). Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. Routledge. ISBN 9780415565660.
Considering the reliable secondary sources shown above and when Indian generals themselves state that Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory, it is very safe to conclude that the result of Bangladesh Liberation War is "Bangladeshi victory". Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bangladeshi victory per reliable sources sighted above, which suggests that it is a Bangladeshi victory. Idealigic (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Idealigic: Can you point out a single "reliable source" which suggests that it is a Bangladeshi victory? I see none. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the source is verifiable as WP:RS, Aman.kumar.goel, see the discussion below.--Zayeem (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory We don't WP:SYNTH statements of army generals due to WP:PRIMARY. Your personal translation of an unknown and unverifiable page number (see WP:VERIFY) isn't convincing.
  • "S R. Chakravarty and Virendara Narain, Foreign Policy of Bangladesh : Trends and Issues". South Asian Studies, Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, January-June and July-December, 1977. p. 80. -dividing Pakistan. They viewed the liberation of Bangladesh as the victory of India and defeat of Bangladesh".[1] P. 41.
  • "Indira Gandhi was re-elected after India's victory over Pakistan in Bangladesh liberation war in 1971", p. 137.
  • "Indian victory over Pakistan in the war of Bangladesh liberation, p. 408.
  • Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India. Scarecrow Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780810865020. "A rapid and complete Indian victory brought about the liberation of Bangladesh in December"[2]
  • Handbook of ASEAN and Regional Cooperation, Prabhas Chandra Sinha, Pentagon Press, "Though Indian victory in the India- Pakistan War 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh refurbished India's image"[3]
  • Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher, p.51, "key aspect for the Indian Army with its successful liberation of Bangladesh.... Indian victory in 1971, was in the words of M. J. Akbar" [4]
These sources make it clear "liberation of Bangladesh" was an "Indian victory". Orientls (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
How many of these are reliable secondary sources? None. You cannot regurgitate anything that Google books throws at you without analysing its credibility. Are they even cited by others? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Worldbruce. Orientls and Aman.kumar.goel also do check the discussion below. --Zayeem (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I have asked for Orientls' email address where I can send the PDF of web edition of the book. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bangladesh-Indian Victory, notwithstanding some WP:GIBBERISH like "We don't WP:SYNTH statements of army generals due to WP:PRIMARY" made by an editor who throws WP:COMPETENCE as part of discussion.
Our Indian friends are having a hard time believing that Bangladesh could have a victory while India had a victory. It "needs" to be an exclusive Indian victory, though NONE of their sources say so. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources I mentioned above do support the current parameter "Indian victory".
  • Your first source makes no mention of a "Bangladeshi victory".
  • As for the second source says "with military intervention from India", but the source isn't particularly making conclusions like "Bangladesh-Indian Victory" but instead saying that victory was the result of Indian intervention.
  • Now coming to the third source, you are WP:CHERRYPICKING as the whole sentence say: "A period of nation building followed the 1971 Liberation victory under the leadership of Mujib".[5] Where the source is talking about this military conflict? Orientls (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:CIR. I did not at any point push for a Bangladesh victory. Read first. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
But will you deny that you are attempting to mention "Bangladesh" before "Indian victory"? Where does your echo any words like "Bangladeshi victory" or even "Bangladeshi-Indian victory"? Ironic of you to cite "WP:CIR" when you are struggling with your numerous behavioral issues and showing a continued failure to understand WP:PRIMARY. Orientls (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Orientls, put all your counter-arguments in the discussion section, leave the !votes alone. --Zayeem (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It was Indian victory as totally supported by references on the article. Any mention involving "Bangladesh" would be misleading and ungrammatical because Bangladesh didn't exist as a 'nation-state' in 1971. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory per scholastic consensus on the subject, and also per above that Bangladesh was founded after this war. All the available secondary sources. The case has remain unchanged since discussion began in February. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bangladeshi victory - per nom and analysis of reliable sources. "Bangladeshi-Indian victory" could be preferred for neutrality but the Bangladesh forces played the decisive role in achieving victory and it's apt to describe it as Bangladeshi victory. Also, the state of Bangladesh came into being on 26th March 1971 and already had formal recognition of two states by the first week of December, so yes, it was "Bangladesh" that won the war. For additional sources,
--Zayeem (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • See no mention of "Bangladesh's victory" on this source.
  • I am seeing more falsification of sources because the actual quote of this book is "When the war ended and everyone in the novel celebrated the victory of Bangladesh". Why you are citing a novel to claim victory of Bangladesh in the war?
  • How this book published by a Bangladeshi government-funded university qualifies for WP:HISTRS?
  • Same logic applies on this publication by University of Dhaka which is yet another Bangladeshi government-funded university. They don't quality WP:HISTRS. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The book clearly shows "Bangladesh's victory" in page 58 in my search.
  • I didn't cite a novel, it's a scholarly article analyzing fictions on historic wars and conflicts, the quotation was the author's own words and not excerpt from the fiction. Details of the source already provided.
  • Peer-reviewed scholarly articles published by journals from universities are reliable sources, doesn't matter if a university is public or private. The universities in this case are both accredited. --Zayeem (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Srijanx22: Can you plese discuss in the "discussion section" and have !votes and cites in "survey section"? Commenting at random places makes the discussion very difficult to follow. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been lurking around through the talk page for a while looking over at discussion. It seems that there is no dispute there in academia about it being an Indian victory. As no secondary sources with any alternative interpretation exist (hence no alternative scholarly opinion). The current version is verifiably correct per academia. The issue leftover here lies with interpretations of the extent of Bangladeshi Mukti Bahini's involvement of war, whether it should be really considered an allied victory like the American war of independence or sole Indian victory.
  • Firoz Mehboob Kamal (2018-07-04). "Enforced Indebtedness to India & the Politics of Appeasement in Bangladesh". South Asia Journal. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |author= (help)

Mukti Bahini couldn’t liberate even a single district or a sub-district on their own. They needed a full scale invasion by the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy to do the job. After its victory in the war, India could present Bangladesh –the separated eastern wing of Pakistan, as a gift on a platter to her submissive cronies.

There are many more sources suggesting the same - Mukti Bahini can't be credited for the victory. It's not very hard to determine whether it's like the case of American revolutionary war where great repulsion came from inside or like American expedition into Haiti where locals didn't have strength and resources to resist. This seems sufficient to explain why consensus exists only for Indian victory in the liberation war. Abhishek0831996 13:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory I have to completely agree with Abhishek0831996 that: 1) comparison with American Revolutionary War is a red herring, 2) there is no reasonable dispute over "Indian victory", 3) there is a lack of scholarly consensus for claiming Mukti Bahini as a victorious or equal contender to India for claiming any credit of the victory.
Haroon, Asif. Roots of 1971 Tragedy. by Sang-e-Meel Publications. p. 299. documents what was the reception of this war even in those days among the mainstream sources;
  • The Washington Post wrote, "India regularly supplied arms and ammunition to Mukti Bahini, but when it became clear that Mukti Bahini alone couldn't achieve the target, the Indian Army jumped into it."
  • The London Times published an article stating, "There is substantial evidence to prove that, if not all, at least a major portion of Mukti Bahini consisted of Indian soldiers".
  • The Yorkshire Post noted on 1 April, 1971: "India's attempts at subversion in Pakistan, of sponsoring a fifth column in East Pakistan, and her machinations to undo Pakistan itself have a longer history behind them. They started from the very day in 1947 when Pakistan was created. Since that day Indians have never reconciled themselves to the fact of Pakistan, and have employed every device to cripple this State."
It is very clear from these mainstream sources together with the one provided by Abhishek0831996 that for reliable sources, the liberation war was yet another "India v. Pakistan war". They don't agree at all that Mukti Bahini achieved or could achieve anything on her own, instead they say that independence was a doing of India. Now since Wikipedia isn't for righting great wrongs, we shouldn't be contradicting these reliable sources. Eliko007 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Pakistani view,
General AAK Niazi, who served as the commander of Pakistani occupation forces in Bangladesh during the war, acknowledges the fact that the MB was gradually growing stronger both in terms of military training as well as morale. He also admits the impact of MB operations on the Pakistan army, when he laments that his forces were taking casualties
Indian view
The most comprehensive study of the Indian views on the Mukti Bahini has perhaps been done by Captain (Retd.) S.K. Garg in his book titled “Freedom Fighters of Bangladesh”. He highlights the effects that were made by the guerilla activities of the MB, pointing out that, “As days went by, the Mukti Bahini expanded the scope and frequency of its hit-and run raids, ambushes and attacks on small isolated enemy positions which resulted in liberating the occupied territory
Of course there are conflicting accounts as well but the above view is where both Indians and Pakistanis converge in defining the role of Mukti Bahini or the Bangladesh forces. I'm not even considering the Bangladeshi view here. Hence, following both WP:NPOV and WP:AD, the factually accurate description of the result should be "Bangladeshi victory". Nomian (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
You must read the comment from Eliko007. You will know that your personal synthesis of WP:PRIMARY sources in your own words is factually inaccurate and contradicts mainstream view. Orientls (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The reference I quoted looks like an article from an academic journal reviewing different views, so must be a secondary source. I just quoted words from a single source so it's not synthesis, neither my own words. Mainstream view would be the views of military historians, like what I quoted above. You are of course entitled to your own opinion and don't have to agree with me. Nomian (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Bangladeshi-Indian vicory. Both the Bangladeshis and the Indians fought the Pakistani forces. They were allied with each other and they supported each other. The sources support all of this. So the victory belongs to both of them. Producing sources that label or other as the "victor" makes no difference, unless these sources are arguing that this common sense postion is wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory as the article currently states. I agree that "Bangladeshi" didn't exist in 1971 so it would be misleading for Wikipedia to treat it as an independent entity for this war. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory. (Redacted) 180.92.224.182 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
You might require to look at the policies of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thank you. Nomian (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory or Decisive Indian victory per these scholarly sources:-
Furthermore, the Mukti Bahini never had the military advantage over Pakistan as already concluded above, and the "Mukti Bahini could never have achieved independence on their own".[6] The infobox needs to reflect these important facts by sticking to either "Indian victory" or "Decisive Indian victory". --RaviC (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory I would echo the point made by the IP above: Could Bangladesh defeat Pakistan in 1971? Or today? Anwer is obvious no. It is widely believed here in Pakistan that India engineered this war, just like reliable sources (see Eliko007's sources) strongly suggests. Mukti Bahini never had an upper hand against Pakistan, nor it could ever achieve any victory on its own. To give any credit to Bangladeshi/Mukti Bahini is to curtail the achievement of the actual winner - which was India - and violation of WP:NPOV. Editorkamran (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Closure undone I have undone the unilateral closure of this RfC done by the nom. You don't get to withdraw RfC if RfC has turned against you. Let it run and allow someone uninvolved to close it. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:RFCCLOSE states that the nom can withdraw the RfC. It's true that the solution of "Pakistani defeat" has gone against me as I suggested "Bangladeshi victory" but the outcome was suggested by several uninvolved editors Buckshot06, Peacemaker67, RegentsPark, AshLin, From Hill To Shore and others as seen in Solution 2: "Pakistani defeat" section. So that's why I withdrew the RfC as Buckshot06 approved the outcome in the infobox based on the discussion. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory Per RaviC and Orientls. No reliable sources have been provided that would suggest anything contrary to "Indian victory", unlike the sources provided by Abhishek0831996 and Eliko007 which crush any possible view of "Bangladeshi victory". Lorstaking. 12:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bangladesh-Indian allied victory per the text of Pakistani Instrument of Surrender ("The PAKISTAN Eastern Command agree to surrender all PAKISTAN Armed Forces in BANGLA DESH to Lieutenant-General JAGJIT SINGH AURORA, General Officer Commanding in Chief of Indian and BANGLA DESH forces in the Eastern Theatre"). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Indian victory Western Pakistan was going through genocide while American revolutionary forces were very repulsive. Those two cannot be compared with each other. There was no Bangladesh in 1971 either. So any possibility of having "Bangladesh" in parameter should be taken out and primary sources shouldnt be taken into consideration. Only option that could make sense is "Indian victory". User:Aakash_Singh_India
  • Decisive Indian victory per RaviC. India should get more credit for creation of Bangladesh than Mukti Bahini as per the information available from most reliable sources. Mukti Bahani played a very important role, but Indian Army & Indian Air Force played decisive role as per most sources. The above support for Mukti Bahini is not from reliable sources and hence contradicts WP:RS. Thanks Dhy.rjw (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Dhy.rjw

Discussion

I have googled "Muldhara 71" and found several links to download its PDF copy free of cost (this one for example). As a native Bengali speaker, I can confirm the translation of Za-ari-masen is accurate. This is the book's entry on the publisher's website, this is its bibliographic information on Google Books for second edition in 1995. If a source "X" is cited by other reliable sources, I don't think there should be any doubt on the reliability of source X. Some of the sources brought by Aditya Kabir also further restates "Bangladeshi victory" in Bangladesh Liberation War.

I have also checked the sources brought by Orientls, and they don't look credible, definitely no way near Mudhara 71. Consider the following,

  • Indian Foreign Policy: Annual Survey is a self-published source.
  • "Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India." That's a tertiary source.
  • "Wars and No Peace Over Kashmir, M. Maroof Raza, Lancer Publisher" the author just quotes MJ Akbar, not the book's own conclusion. So that's WP:PRIMARY.

Also, you cannot quote statements on victory in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and push it on Bangladesh liberation war, that will be WP:SYNTH. --Zayeem (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  • You are still yet to verify how "Muldhara 71" supports your information.
  • Your analysis of sources is inaccurate because "Mansingh, Surjit. Historical Dictionary of India" is a quality WP:RS published by Scarecrow Press, Inc. I don't see anybody confusing Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with Bangladesh liberation war, other than you. Orientls (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I already said that I can confirm Za-ar-masen's translation is accurate and it supports the claim of "Bangladeshi victory". You can also follow the recommendations of Worldbruce stated above. Dictionaries are not secondary sources. Your have to bring sources that discuss "Bangladesh liberation war" and claims Indian victory to support your !vote. Otherwise, it's WP:SYNTH. --Zayeem (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Then why you are not capable of making the source verifable for us? You can bring the quotation, scan the copy, or provide an available copy online for actually passing WP:VERIFY. "Historical Dictionary of India" is not a Dictionary but a book about history of Indian subcontinent. Are you only looking at the titles of the book? Each of the source I mentioned is talking about the "liberation" war. Like I said, you are the only one confusing Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 with Bangladesh liberation war when sources are clear about "liberation" war. Orientls (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Orientls, stop repeatedly making the same argument. Kmzayeem's post already shows a link where the book can be accessed online where you can verify it yourself. Alternatively, you can give me your email address and I will send you a PDF file of the book's web edition. WP:VERIFY doesn't say offline sources cannot be accepted, in that sense you are typically misrepresenting the policy to mislead others, this is disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"Historical Dictionary of India" is a technical dictionary and a tertiary source, no matter how you interpret it. --Zayeem (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sachin.cba: You may not be entirely accurate here. (1) "It was Indian victory as totally supported by references on the article." I am sure you haven't checked the citations for a Bangladesh-Indian Victory yet. Because there you will find a lot of sources supporting something else. (2) "Any mention involving "Bangladesh" would be misleading and ungrammatical because Bangladesh didn't exist as a 'nation-state' in 1971." You are in for a surpise. India and Bhutan had already recognized Bangladesh before Pakistan surrendered, many charities were aiding "Bangladesh", the Indian forces formed a joint command with "Bangladesh forces" and so on. It was pretty much a nation state at the time, even if you disagree to the date claimed by Bangladesh - 26th March 1971. Sadly, I didn't get the "ungrammatical" point at all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just like to say one thing. India already has a separate wikipage for this war (Indo-Pakistani War of 1971), in which it is clearly written that India won the war. This page is about the Bangladesh Liberation war, therefore I think the infobox should say "Bangladeshi victory" which encompasses the victory of Bangladeshis who fought for their own liberation. Let us (we Indians) not forget that now Bangladesh is a sovereign nation. They also deserve to tell their liberation story the way they want. I am not saying they are free to fabricate facts. I am saying whenever there comes a subjective dilemma (even after looking at the evidence), we should give the citizens of Bangladesh a little more say in this matter. Therefore I recommend, "Bangladeshi victory". I am sure our Bangladeshi friends will change it into "Bangladeshi-Indian victory". Let us keep the peace and go home. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Solution 1: See aftermath

On a clearly controversial issue such as this, just cut out the local sources and concentrate on what Western sources say. Even Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi academics publishing in the West are likely to be biased. There are a few Western sources above, just pull them together and see what they say. I'd say start with this, which says, inter alia, "As a result of the Indian victory, Bangladesh emerged as the third independent state on the subcontinent." Alternatively, change it to "Pakistani defeat", as that is hardly controversial. Even better, put "See Aftermath section" in the infobox for the result, and explain it all in the Aftermath section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Peacemaker67: This really works.
I don't think our Indian friends cared to take a look at the nine books I posted with quotations and all. That tells a lot about their willingness to discuss and achoeve consensus.
I propose to go with PM67's idea. Solves most of our problems. This is the reason I wanted uninvolved experienced editors to join in. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, when Indian generals themselves support the fact that the Bangladesh forces played the most prominent role in achieving victory as India had limitations in troop mobilization in Bangladesh/East Pakistan, it really provides a clear picture what should be the result. That being said, I'm willing to accept the suggestion of "Pakistani defeat" as a compromise to avoid controversy. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
"Pakistani defeat" wikilinked to lead to the Aftermath section (click on Pakistani defeat to see what mean). I think that's the idea we can use. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will incorporate PM67's idea supported by Zari and me. So, if anyone has an objection, let be known. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: @Kautilya3: @RegentsPark: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: Requesting the most level headed editors interested in similar articles to join in. People, please, take a look at this dispute and the solution. This cannot go on forever. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, I think there is no objection to the solution, it's been two days since the proposal was made. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to err on the side of caution. Disputes like these has a way of recurring back. A bulletproof consensus, as opposed to an half-baked consensus like the one quoted above, may be better for continued stability of the article. Besides, if someone wants disrupt a fair consensus in future it will be easier to defend the article through WP:ACDS. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I differ with Peacemaker in this context. Victor and not losing side is conventionally mentioned in infobox (which is more indonated in sources as well). Given certain sources claim stalemate between India & Pak on another front, another dispute might arise. We most certainly should find an in between path when actually a disagreement is there between sources. As we are already clear that Indian victory and not Bangladeshi-Indian victory is the concensus in academia, I can't see any reason to give any weightage to a version unsupported by sources and just being pushed by a certain set of members.

The dispute is an year old when the group wanted to push it as Bangladeshi-allied victory and now Bangladeshi-Indian victory, both of versions which were never supported by sources. They invited volunteers from WP:MILHIST forum here and got same responses what I have been giving for an year. If I don't render this effort as a mere disruption, I don't know what else should I. If no dispute among scholastic sources is there, there is no point in compromising and finding a middle path. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm stuck on, what seems to me undeniable, the difference between the India-Pakistan war and the liberation struggle. Clearly India emerged victorious from the war which ran through December. Equally clearly, Bangladesh achieved liberation because of India's victory in the war. But, wouldn't it also follow that Bangladesh, or the Mukti Bahini to be precise, which fought from March to December, also emerged victorious because they did get what they want? I haven't had time to look at the references but this seems fairly obvious to me. Perhaps something along the lines of "Indian victory in the India Pakistan war of 1971 and Bangladeshi victory in the struggle for Independence"? Or, "Indian and Bangladeshi victory in the struggle for Bangladesh's independence"? If, of course, this is properly sourceable.moments like this, I miss @Darkness Shines:, who knew all about the Bangladesh war!--RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As per my analysis of the sources, Bangladesh and India fought as a joint force or Joutho Bahini from December (see List of sectors in the Bangladesh Liberation War and Mitro Bahini order of battle), so a neutrally stated description would be "Bangladeshi-Indian victory". The misleading suggestion of "academic consensus" stems from the cherrypicked passing lines from cherrypicked sources produced by a search result with preferred keywords on Google. You can find tons of sources in Bengali language that state "Bangladeshi victory", one has been already presented above. This contesting claim of Bangladeshi victory at least makes the "Indian victory" a POV statement, if not false. For this reason, I suggested to simply eliminate the description of "victory" and state it as "Pakistan's surrender" which pretty much falls in the same line of solution stated by Peacemaker67. I don't know why it's so hard to accept as a compromise. --Zayeem (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: @Kautilya3: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: Where are you? Pinging again. This discussion needs you.
@Peacemaker67: @Nick-D: I guess this discussion needs a second visit by you.
@Buckshot06: @Serial Number 54129: @From Hill To Shore: @Azx2: @UnknownForEver: @AshLin: @Smsarmad: @Bengalpatriot71: @Mercenary2k: @EninE: @Incognito1980: @TrueRavin: @DPdH: Please, help. This discussion needs military historians, not nationalistic POVs. Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker's suggestion at the top of this sub-section looks like an excellent idea to me: if there isn't consensus in the secondary sources, the infobox shouldn't pretend that there is. Peacemaker's suggestion reflect how this kind of issue has been successfully handled in a bunch of other articles. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that and agree. Put something accurate (Pakistan defeat, Indian victory and formation of Bangladesh, see aftermath), down in the infobox and elaborate in the aftermath section. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Obviously I agree with just "See Aftermath section", and it appears that this has consensus, support apparent from Nick and I, as well as Aditya Kabir and Za-ari-masen, and partially from RegentsPark. I suggest you implement it and concentrate on ensuring the outcome is neutrally described in the Aftermath section. Annually, thousands of editor-hours are wasted on this sort of bickering over the contents of infoboxes when things are disputed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Endorse everything PM67 says. Just say "See Aftermath section," though you could add "Pakistani defeat." I would suggest you implement it and concentrate on ensuring the outcome is neutrally described in the aftermath section. Annually, thousands of editor-hours are wasted on this sort of bickering over the contents of infoboxes, and reality is too messy, sometimes to be squashed into infobox parameters (h/t PM67 for some of this text). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: be mindful about WP:CANVASSING and WP:BATTLE. The RfC is on the run for community opinion and thus you must stop canvassing editors by sending notifications through pinging. Also, you need to stop ridiculing any other contributors.
Why do we need a "See Aftermath section"? Is it because some editors don't like "Indian victory"? Then I am opposed to adding even just "Pakistani defeat" because I haven't seen a single reliable source disputing "Indian victory" or a policy based explanation for removing "Indian victory" it. I don't see why WP:IDL should be taken into account when we are making a compromise. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Abhishek0831996: Explained at my talk page. Keep the discussion at one place. If it is here, then here. If at my talk page, then there. Not in two places at the same time. Since you make this personal, better if it happens at my talk page. It will help people to focus on the critical issues here. The personal grudge is pretty distracting. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Abhishek0831996, don't remove the POV template as we are still discussing the issue. See WP:MTR to know when to remove such maintenance templates. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
But the addition of the template was overnight and frivolous since there is no "POV" involved. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If there is no POV dispute what are we discussing here then? Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No, our dispute is not related to PoV most certainly. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Then what is it related to? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks nothing more than a disagreement over what should be stated in results, essentially over interpretation of sources. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes and that disagreement is a POV dispute. The readers of article should know that there is a disagreement over the result. Aditya Kabir, am I wrong? Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I am still working on getting more "experienced" "uninvolved" and "reputed" editors who know about similar stuff to voice their opinions. POV combatants are not really good for a consensus. I guess the combative POV pushers are trying very hard to resist such editors from coming here. But I still believe that on Wikipedia collaboration and consensus will win over POV pushing. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Instead of throwing WP:NPAs can you at least address where is the "POV"? These poor skills to interpret Wikipedia policies aren't helping debate in anyway. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
"Indian victory" is the only thing the infobox can meaningfully say and it is NPOV because it is supported by reliable sources. It can be violation of NPOV only if it is a fringe view or it is meaningfully contradicted by credible sources. I clearly don't see evidence for any of those reasons. Sachin.cba (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is a clear misuse of the maintenance template. Not every dispute needs to be tagged on main article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: You are yet to explain the PoV tag on article. You simply can't give PoV tag to any version you don't like, you have to verify the PoV. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Since there are at least three editors who support the inclusion of the POV tag, there is no consensus to remove, you need to achieve a consensus before removing it per WP:MTR. There are sources that confirm the opposing POV which are already shown in the discussion. This lengthy discussion and the related RfC on the dispute are enough to "verify" the POV. Don't bludgeon the discussion by repeating the same argument which are already addressed. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
But they don't justify why the tag is warranted. They haven't proven where is the "POV". I am removing the tag. Be aware of WP:POINT. Orientls (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Numbers don't really matter in WP:CON but good standing does. It doesn't matter if two, three or five members support inclusion of tag, just as they support a particular version. They have to verify for both. In case you provide the set of third party secondary sources free of diplomatic language and scholars which support your version and still I try to impose my version, it would be PoV. But as you have not been successful in doing so so far, you can't leave a tag there. The ongoing clash has strictly been in state What sources and academia say versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT unnecessarily being dragged. Neither dragging it longer nor misusing template is going to help you. As I told before, you really need to be more competent and learn where WP:EW and WP:BRD applies. Other way, it will only have adverse effects on your credibility. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Solution 2: "Pakistani defeat"

I am going to address the elephant in the room, rather than the points being wrangled here. Sources support the facts, which are these: substantially large fighting forces of the Indian Armed Forces engaged in conventional combat with the Pakistani forces in East Pakistan along many axes, defeating them utterly; the Mukti Bahini played a long and substantial fighting role for the whole duration, in the form of an insurgency at first, with small unit actions, and providing guidance and intelligence support to the attacking Indian formations, with Indian cross-border support; that politically the nations had equal status, as can be seen from the joint front that was formed as a politico-militarily front for the fight for Bangladesh's independence. It is clear to any person with common sense, that Indian victory would have been much more costly in time, resources and lives if it weren't for the sterling actions of the Mukti Bahini, and equally that Mukti Bahini were militarily inadequate to defeat and evict East Pakistani military formation without their conventional defeat at the hands of the Indian Army. Efforts to paint this is an Indian victory only is disrespectful of the huge costs and sacrifices of the Bangladeshi people at the hands of the Pakistanis. At the same time, efforts to minimise the importance of the Indian military actions to defeat the Pakistani Army is overstating the capability of the insurgents and disrespectful of the Indian soldiers who lost their lives for the liberation of Bangladesh. Depicting the differing contributions of Indian Army and Mukti Bahini in the form that I mentioned earlier in my comment is neither disrespectful nor belittling either one. I am really not going to say what you should write here, because as a veteran of Indian Army I have COI. My only suggestion is don't go in for over-nationalism or jingoistic views on either side and try to justify the same. Do justice to both sides by accurate presentation of their military contribution and not over-inflating or undermining either. Bangladesh and India are friendly neighbours and as one who had lived as a child in post-Independence Bangladesh, this whole debate to me is distressing and unseemly. AshLin (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Like RegentsPark and AshLin, I also see this as a non-issue, and am deeply disappointed to see so much effort being spent on arguing it. Both the Bangladeshis and the Indians fought the Pakistani forces. They were allied with each other and they supported each other. The victory belongs to both of them. Producing sources that say one or the other makes no difference, unless these sources are somehow able to show that this common sense position is somehow wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Count me in as a support to Peacemaker67's proposal of "Pakistani defeat" if that yields peace. The prime issue at hand is to thwart the disruption to the potential consensus and mediation we are approaching here. --Zayeem (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: @Worldbruce: @BrownHairedGirl: @Serial Number 54129: @From Hill To Shore: @Azx2: @UnknownForEver: @AshLin: @Smsarmad: @Bengalpatriot71: @Mercenary2k: @EninE: @Slatersteven: Please help. This discussion needs you. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to decline to respond here. It looks like you are having a sensible discussion and are working towards a compromise position. Either a consensus will form or it won't. Seeking input from other editors you believe to be sympathetic to one view or another is unlikely to help in building a lasting consensus. If you require input from a broader base, start an RfC, post messages on related WikiProjects or even leave a message at the Village Pump. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, this is becoming interminable. Just implement the consensus solution of "See Aftermath" or "Pakistani defeat" as I suggested or start a neutrally-worded RfC and let the community decide. The sort of constant circular revisiting of old arguments that is going on here only drives away experienced editors who would like to provide some guidance but baulk at the drama. The second option will be more resilient and POV-pushers who edit-war after it are more likely to get blocked because the community has decided on it, not just a group of interested editors, most of whom appear to have at least a bit of a COI because they are from one of the countries/factions involved in the war. And please stop pinging editors, if they want to remain involved in the discussion they will have watchlisted the article or asked to be pinged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: "Seeking input from other editors you believe to be sympathetic to one view or another." I apologise if it seems that way. I frankly don't know where their sympathies lie (for example, I don't know yours). But all are experienced, uninvolved, in good standing, and is knowledgeable about similar articles. This already is an RfC, and I did post to MILHIST. I guess I am bugging people too much. If I could handle this myself, that would not have been needed. Apologising again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I did think we had a conssensus, until some of the editors here rejected that idea. If this wasn't an area under discreationary sanctions I would have made the change myself. But, that probably would get me a sanction and not a soultion. I guess the discussion and the article can take care of itself without my involvement. After all this is the Wikipedia.
A lot of thanks to everyone who came and tried to solve a dispute. I hope I have not tried to sell a viewpoint to anyone. Looking forward to a solution to emerge eventually. Though the entire unfriendliness of the discussion makes me a bit sad. Thanks again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, We already have an RfC ongoing if you scroll above but the question is what if even the RfC fails to provide a consensus? Should we implement the solution suggested by you in that case (which was also endorsed by Nick-D and Buckshot06)? I think it has to be implemented and enforced by one of you neutral editors. The reason why Aditya Kabir was pinging the uninvolved editors from WP:MILHIST is to have a community decision on the dispute, especially when there are some bullying and battling going on by some users which is only making the resolution harder. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, it is easy to miss with all this rigmarole, but it was very poorly formulated unfortunately, and there has been serious sidetracking. Given I suggested it, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to implement it, but I would support any neutral editor that did. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I am happy to change the infobox to PM67's proposed solution unless there's any objection. Would be "Pakistani defeat. See Aftermath." I would strongly encourage those who are concerned about infobox victory parameters to adopt "See Aftermath" in controversial cases. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Especially the aftermath part. Winners and losers make no sense to me since the results of wars are usually nuanced! --RegentsPark (comment) 21:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur, let Peacemaker67's solution of "Pakistani defeat, see Aftermath" happen. Puts an end to this unseemly squabbling for "my nation's contribution is greater than your's". AshLin (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • But that buries undisputed mainstream view of the war, which is "Indian victory",[7] by replacing with unsupported "Pakistani defeat".[8] Unless the question "Why "Indian victory" should be removed?" can be adequately answered especially with the support of a policy as indicated above, it makes no sense to remove it. Orientls (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As I have already expressed, I support Peacemaker67's solution of "Pakistani defeat" as a compromise which would address the POV dispute since there are sources for both "Bangladeshi victory" and "Indian victory" as sighted in the discussions above. I am also urging everyone not to remove the POV template from the article until the dispute is solved. --Zayeem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • POV dispute is when you can conclusively prove how WP:NPOV is being violated. Your edit warring with misleading edit summaries haven't proved it.[9] You had 3 days to provide explanation before it was removed. You can't label your personal disagreement over the reliably supported content as "POV". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The POV dispute is already "conclusively proved" with enough reliable sources. This is the fourth time you have asked the same question when it has been already answered by three editors. Also, read some of the latest comments in the discussion by From Hill To Shore[10] and Nomian[11] where neutral point of view has been mentioned. So the tag is justified. You need achieve a consensus before removing the tag. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
You have not displayed a single dispute among any secondary sources displayed here. Further, you can't justify a POV tag without reliable sources and that most certainly has not been done. Nomian's comment, made up of his analysis of military men, and Kmzayeem's irrelevant sources or sources lacking context do not stand a chance. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Aman.kumar.goel, I had already discussed the POV of the infobox at the talk page before placing the template and backed up my comments by providing reliable secondary sources, that should be sufficient enough to explain the template. You might reject all these sources that oppose your POV. I believe I don't have the capacity to convince you or the other users of what now seems like a WP:GANG who are trying to WP:STONEWALL this article, even if I answer your repetitive same question 1000 times in 1000 different ways. A logical way forward is to have a neutral and uninvolved editor to remove the template when there is enough evidence of a consensus. --Zayeem (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Still, where is the POV that you have to dispute it with NPOV template? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Peace" at Pakistan's expense? No. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I said above that I wasn't particularly appreciative of the random ping. However, I am now looking at this in the context of an RfC. Reading the opening statement, the original options are now out of date, so I have expanded them with options from the subsequent discussion. As an impartial reader with no involvement on this topic, I would agree that any of the options that refer to an Aftermath (or similar) section in the article will be the best approach here. If you have a topic that can't be explained (without dispute) within a few words, it should not appear in the infobox. It is always better to point to the body of the article where the nuanced nature of the sourcing can be explained to present a neutral point of view. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Pakistani defeat or any similar result to be picked from aftermath is only a third option and it definitely should be used only in case when there's an academic dispute between first two options, especially "Indian victory". And given that the results of this war are not really nuanced or disputed, giving undue weight to this "solution" is against the spirit of consensus. Neither consensus is likely, nor likely to be stable even if pushed and may attract another wave of controversy from editors from Pakistani side. Wikipedia articles should reflect scholastic views and not our personal opinions and should be challenged by only another set of academia. If otherwise, I don't know what's the use of sources and guidelines. Sachin.cba (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
No, there is no need for there to be an "academic dispute" to decide what goes into an infobox and what goes into the article body. You are confusing arguments of article content and article presentation. All "see aftermath" says is "read the more detailed text below" and is a standard method to avoid edit warring over a few words. There is no requirement to have the victory field in the infobox at all, that is just a matter of presentation. Issues of presentation are decided by consensus. Guidelines are recommended ways of dealing with particular issues but exceptions can be made if consensus determines that the guideline shouldn't apply to a particular article. As the editors of this page can't reach a consensus you have started an RfC to seek the opinions of the community. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not about how many editors disagree or agree but how strongly a particular view is being supported by the policies. There is a reasonable dispute over "Bangladeshi victory"; there is no dispute over "Indian victory". Just because some editors are not liking "Indian victory" it is their personal problem that is irrelevant to Wikipedia. See Template:Infobox military conflict, it says for "result" that "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say." Moreover the description says "see aftermath" can be used alongside actual results. This page is not that special that it needs special treatment. Sachin.cba (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I am very familiar with consensus, thank you. Please point out to me where I have said that forming consensus is a matter of numbers? From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, Academic reliable sources are already shown to dispute the exclusive "Indian victory". So the lack of academic dispute argued by that user is quite incorrect. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Show one which rejects "Indian victory" but take a look at this source, which say "Mukti Bahini couldn’t liberate even a single district or a sub-district on their own. They needed a full scale invasion by the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy to do the job. After its victory in the war, India could present Bangladesh –the separated eastern wing of Pakistan, as a gift on a platter to her submissive cronies". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions in random websites like southasiajournal.net don't matter. Already many secondary reliable sources have been shown, look above. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparently that "random wesbite" has been cited by scholarly sources,[12] because it is not a "random website" but much better in terms of quality than anything you have cited so far. Saying "look above" won't fly, you have to show the sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Bangladesh celebrates this as their victory as they fought for 9 months. But Pakistani military didn't surrender to Bangladesh because Bangladesh didn't sign to the Geneva Convention that time so there was no security for them. So this can't be an Indian victory and without this article nowhere it is said that it's an Indian victory. Change it. It is a Bangladeshi victory. Shahjahan Rahman (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We celebrate independence, not victory. We didn't actually fight for 9 months but tried to hide and resist. Many of our politicians tried to justify genocide caused by Pakistan and sided with them. There was no war in true terms. Pakistan was attacking and we were compensating. India came to rescue us and provided us independence. India could use us like a puppet state or annex us, but they showed kindness. Stop being so thankless and dishonest to actual events of Bangladeshi history. 180.92.224.182 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Did we not move beyond that discussion already? A nuanced outcome is supposed to be captured in more detail than a couple of words in the infobox, hence "see Aftermath", leaving the only unequivocal outcome there - "Pakistani defeat". Isn't that the current consensus? Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
We haven't moved beyond that. There is no consensus for "Pakistani defeat" in the light of policy based objections made above.[13] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how someone could say "We celebrate independence, not victory", there is both Independence Day of Bangladesh and Victory Day of Bangladesh, both are public holidays. Aditya Kabir, you are right, there was a consensus among uninvolved editors to have "Pakistani defeat" as the result, following which Buckshot06 changed the result. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I have doubts about the weak consensus we have here. This RfC will auto-close after 30 days with or without a consensus. If there is no consensus apparent at the end of that time, we will need other mechanisms to resolve content disputes. For now, you and I and most of the participants here have presented their opinions and reservations, and that's about it. We have a status quo only, not an agreement. So please be patient. Eventually we will get to consensus, even if it goes against our personal stands. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Pakistani defeat" is a misleading notion since it is WP:OR and gives a misleading impression that Mukti Bahini played a significant role in defeating Pakistan - it didn't. Editorkamran (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Listen people, it looks like we have a contested compromise as a status quo here, and not a clear consensus. I also see that we have exhausted the potential of this discussion. There is nothing to gain from keeping this alive. If you people agree, we can request to close this discussion and take it to WP:DRN or something (I couldn't find a better place to go to, if any of you have any, please suggest). No need to respond if you don't have an objection. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Aditya Kabir, I can withdraw the nomination as the poster of the RfC. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Really? That would be nice. Just a little cautionary note. With a sudden attack of the real life, I am currently editing less than a week back. So I may not be as active for this discussion for a week or so. This was one of the reasons I was so frantically trying to get a consensus, before I pop out into a semi break again. Aditya(talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Victory certainly, let's try to keep the history as it is. It was a fight that broke between east and west pakisthan, while so India helped east Pakistan (Bangladesh) as a friend. East pakisthan was the one who wanted independence, fought for having their mother language. Battosai-sama (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of jingoism that leads to bad blood. I would remind Battosai-sama that India looked after millions of Bangladesh refugees at her own cost while the nation of Bangladesh didnt exist, and that India was the only nation which actually came to the aid of the Bengali people of former East Pakistan. Indians gave their lives for your country to become free. While Indians don't expect any gratitude for what we did in that war, let there be no doubt that I will call out any such attempts like yours to disrupt the formation of an amicable consensus point of view and thereby introduce NPOV into this encyclopedia, which transcends nationalistic sentiments. AshLin (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
That's was so typically humble, AshLin. But as someone from Bangladesh I have no need to be as humble about the Indian contribution:
  1. India sheltered and fed some 10 million Bangladeshis when India did not have a strong economy (compare that to Bangladesh sheltering 1 million Rohingyas).
  2. India sheltered, trained and armed some 100,000 Mukti Bahini while there was a raging internal armed conflict in India.
  3. India blocked all sea, land and air routes that West Pakistan could use to bring supplies and reinforcements into the East, hence denying the Pakistani forces any and every chance of repleminshments.
  4. India vigorously rallied international support for Bangladesh, including the Russo-Indian naval blockade of the Bay of Bengal that disscuaded the US 7th Fleet from coming to Pakistan's aid, moving the UN and organizing supporters across the world.
  5. India fought along the Mukti Bahini, in which it mobilized one of the largest tank movements in history, a sudden strike that immobilised the entire Pakistani airforce in the East and a huge contingent of soldiers. 2,000 of them died while fighting for Bangladesh.
Yes, Bangladesh won. So did India. The Bangladeshi victory got them an independent country. The Indian victory got them the most glorious military achievement in many centuries. They fought together in different legs:
  1. The first leg of the war (25 March - 10 April) was faought by Bangladeshis only.
  2. The second leg (11 April - 2 December) was fought by Bangladeshis heavily reliant on India.
  3. The last leg (3 - 16 December) was fought by the Joint Command of Indians and Bangladeshis, lef by an Indian general. Pakisatani forces surrendered to this Joint Command represented by that same Indian general, while the surrender was negotiated by another Indian general.
I agreed to the current version of the outcome, because anything else would right now be a cause of bad blood and edit warring. But, from what I see, this was a joint Indian and Bangladeshi victory in every way possible. (Disclaimer: Consensus is king. Which means, I am not trying the sell my opinion here)
These two countries were brothers-in-arms in 1971. There is not reason for editors to take an Indian or Bangladeshi side and fight each other. It's just sad. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Solution 3: Independence of Bangladesh/East Pakistan

The result of the war is Liberation of Bangladesh. This avoids the use of win/loss and who fought how much. There is yet another article Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 where the result of the wider war can be discussed. I apologise if someone has already suggested this. Chaipau (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually did suggest Indian victory for that war. The bigger war (fought in two fronts plus the high seas) was fought between India and Pakistan, one lost and the other won. But the smaller war was fought by Mukti Bahini and Joint Command (not India alone) against Pakistan, two won and one lost. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I think nationalist sentiments have been exhibited from both sides. One comment even had to be redacted because of a blatant attack towards Bangladesh while some other editors even tried to restore it. I apologise to AshLin if he has been hurt by any comment here, a veteran deserves the utmost respect. All of us may not be satisfied but "Pakistani defeat" is a workable solution proposed and approved by the uninvolved and neutral editors here. I'm now withdrawing the RfC to prevent any further inflammatory remarks and disruption on this talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@Srijanx22: Can you please post you comments where it belongs, and not in the "survey"? That would be highly helpful.
BTW, this undoing and IfC closure may have not been too useful anyways. In 10 more days this RfC expires anyways, and there is no progress in the discussion at the moment. I don't believe there would ever be any progress if no one is willing to move from their positions, until uninvolved editors without a CoI forces a decision. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:RFCCLOSE clearly states that the nom can withdraw the RfC. There is still no consensus while the uninvolved editors approved a solution. I suggest Srijanx22 to start another RfC if he is not satisfied. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand, why is there a massive discussion over this. It is clear that it was a Bangladeshi victory, why is not being written as Bangladeshi victory? Anyone who doesn't know much about this topic can read the article and figure out that it was clearly a Bangladeshi victory. As it says on the top of the article, for Indian intervention see Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. This Bangladesh Liberation War was for the liberation of Bangladesh as the name suggests. And the Bangladeshis were victorious. It shouldn't say Pakistani defeat as that is ambiguous (Someone might ask are they talking about East or West Pakistan???). That's why it should say Independence of East Pakistan/Bangladesh at least! UserNumber (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I agree to this. This was Bangladesh victory (or more correctly, logically Liberation of Bangladesh). The belligerents of the Liberation war (Bn: মুক্তিযুদ্ধ) were Provisional Government of Bangladesh, Mukti Bahini, and Pakistan on the other side. Indian armed force definitely played an major role in the war. However this was Liberation of Bangladesh. Think of "British Indian independence movement", that does not make sense. That was Indian independence movement. Here it is similar, with little difference, a province which was under Pakistan, known as East Pakistan, got their independence. Indian army signed the surrender because someone from East Pakistan could not do then. There was no recognition of an army or Government, and note the war itself was for this recognition of Bangladesh. That's my initial comment on this topic. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this option is very sensible. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Result of Bangladesh Liberation war

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Result is:Victory of Bangladesh as a sovereign country. Not Indian-Bangladeshi victory See here[1] ShazidSharif2001 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-16207201
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War/Archive_9&oldid=1145400604"