Talk:Lahore Front

WikiProject class rating

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

stalemate ?

Why do some one (as i dont know who actually mentioned tht) think that result of this battle was stalemate ?

Please explain and defend the terminology. or we can come up with a more accurate and precise terminology to define the result.

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to what your "someone" would define as a "stalemate". But I just found this interesting editorial from Pakistani historian Dr. Athar Osama that may provide some context. Osama asserts that Pakistan's political-military leaders attempted (largely successfully) to conceal or rewrite the history of 1965 to cover up their own tragic incompetence.

He states that the idea "that on Sept 6th 1965, India invaded Pakistan (specifically Lahore) and that once thrust into this battle, Pakistan came out to be victorious over its archrival... on close examination, [is] quite far from reality."

Other pertinent statements: "...by the end of the 3rd week of war, both countries had found themselves in a virtual military stalemate." And this: "In the ground war itself, there was a military stalemate on virtually all, northern (Kashmir), central (Lahore), and southern, axes.... While Pakistan came out with better numbers in terms of casualties (dead, injured, and missing) and equipment losses, it hardly was victorious as is often claimed by the establishment. Unless you define victory as being able to defend oneself during an offensive operation — hardly a definition indeed."

And finally, this: "General K. M. Arif in Khaki Shadows writes that in the immediate aftermath of the 1965 War 'Pakistan suffered a loss of a different kind… Soon after the War the GHQ ordered all the formations and units of the Pakistan Army to destroy their respective war diaries and submit completed reports to this effect by a given date. This was done... Their [the war diaries'] destruction, a self-inflicted injury and an irreparable national loss, was intellectual suicide.' While considerable second-hand material has become available since then, first hand information and accounts of the war remain a national secret whose disseminator could be charged under the Official Secrets Act. The organizational and legal paraphernalia to ensure that nobody ever learns from this tragic event in Pakistan’s history is complete and foolproof."

If that is true and the determination to obscure the battles' facts has succeeded to such an extent, it doubles the need for circumspection and careful attention to sourcing here on Wikipedia. Under such circumstances, it would be foolhardy to bluntly summarize these battles with a simple "result" of stalemate/victory/defeat. Which makes me think it would be wise to leave that field blank. Or call it "disputed", since India and Pakistan can't agree on the most basic of facts.

The rest of that article is worth a read, if only for the discussion about the potential consequences of simplifying and mythologizing messy battles like this into stories of glorious victory for the home team. (Especially interesting because it is a criticism of the Pakistani narrative from a Pakistani.)

In a similar vein, this analysis by Major A. H. Amin begins by criticizing "the smoke screen of glory created by [Pakistan's] official propagandists", but then goes on at length to provide battle details. 166.70.38.198 (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

dude, i wasnt asking about 1965 war (i know it was a stalemate), i was asking particularly about the battle of lahore.

More over the sources you gave talk about over all war i.e 1965 war not perticularly about battle of lahore. You can post such sources/ material on 1965 war's artcile but even there not as a general info but rather a minority view as it fell in the category of fringe theory.

such sources that you provided can not be used in wikipedia see this policy Wikipedia:Fringe theories, these are called conspiracy theories (no matter wht any one's personal opinion is about their authenticity) due to their nature of being inverse of the popular views.

Any ways, battle of lahore..... india attacked lahore, a surprise attack, captured a sizable territory in the initial thrust, pak held their advance the next day, then counter attacked and indians were pushed back to the eastern bank of BRB canal and until 22nd september (end of war) they couldnt capture any pakistani position on entire lahore front except for one (sorry i forgot its name dont hv it in my head right now) that they captured on 20th september a day before ceasefire.

Now which military doctrine regards this type of successful defensive battle as a stalemate ?

Any thoughts ?

When all the sources come from Indian sites, how on earth can they be credible?

Ahmed Salahuddin. 12:24 AM, 23 June 2010 My father was Divisional Administrative Commander of 11th division and the GOC was Santa Claus Gen. Abdul Hameed Khan in Lahore Pakistan. According to the facts, India made a preamptive strike over Lahore in the early hours of Sept. 6th'1965. And came in all the way to Shalamar Gardens. Pakistan being un-aware did not put any kind of resistence and the Indian Forces captured a lot of area but since they did not had enough troops to hold the captured land retrieved back and camped out near reiwind. In the evening The then The President of Pakistan FM. Mohammad Ayub Khan formally Informed the Nation of the Indian Attack and it did not took Pak Army much time to Push them back into their own territory and on the 13th sept.1965 a major Indian city in Indian Punjab Khem Karan was under Pakistan's control. To stabelize their position and to take this war deeper into Indian territory, Pakistan's Army being smaller in numbers was over streched, so they had to call in local Pakistani Police to hold grounds and they took this war further all the way to River Bieaas and our forces were on the western banks and Indian forces were on the eastern banks of the river, all the sectors to Lahor were well covered like Wagha we were holding grounds Badian we were across Bamba wala Ravi Badian canal commonly known as BRB canal, on the other hand India was already taking heavy losses in Air warfare when Pakistan Air Force attacked Jodhpur Jamnagar Adampur And Halwara Airfieds and davastated those Military Airfields along with the aircrafts on those bases India was stunned that how in the world we could penetrate so deep and that was Different warfare when skills were matched and we used to have Dog Fights in the air and Pakistans dominence on the ground and air superiority gave recognition to Pakistan in the whole world as a formidable fighting force. Later because of which United States placed an embargo on Pakistan that we cannot use American arms against India and Soviet Union Immediately called the UN security council meeting to some how stop this because Pakistan might get in a better bargaining position on the fate of Kashmir. Because Chuwinda/Sialkot sector we were holding Indian Territory, in kashmir we were close to River Tavi In Rajistan we were looking at Jaysalmir. Its just a propaganda that this war was a stalemate, and keep India from embarresment but the facts are India was defeated in that war that is why Soviet Union called everyone at Round Table Conference in Tashkant and as always we lost Diplomatically and brought our forces back at Demarcation line. Thank You. Ahmed Salahuddin. 12:24 AM, 23 June 2010

It was definitely a Stalemate. Yes, Indian Army didn't capture Lahore and unilaterally halted at Lahore outskirts but it did achieve what it wanted. Nuff said.

Further, India did capture a chunk of Pakistani territory in this sector and captured places like Barki, Icchogil bund and Dograi. In fact, the Indian army captured Dograi just few hours before ceasefire came into effect.

About Kashmir, India held more pakistani territory of Kashmir(pakistan-occupied Kashmir) than pakistan's gains in Indian Kashmir. Pakistanis were definitely defeated at Kashmir during the middle stages of the war itself.

In Punjab, the Indian advance could only be halted at "chawinda". India captured Phillorah as well, along with some more fertile villages at that sector.

Pakistanis did make some gains in Rajasthan, capturing some bordering towns but Indians did give a befitting reply by penitrating into Sindh and pakistanis should realize already that Rajasthan isn't fertile at all. They did capture bordering town of Munabao and a fort (kishangarh fort) which is near Indo-pak border. But then again, Indian gains in Sindh massively outnumbered pakistani gains in Rajasthan. And in fertile Punjab, pakistani armour was smashed just like that.

About Lahore sector, the fighting was nothing more or less than a Stalemate. Both sides fought gallantly but Indians did inflict a lot of damage to their pakistani counterparts and also captured huge chunk of pakistani territory at Lahore sector. But again, that was a Stalemate.

So, my pakistani friends, your propoganda would obviously make you sound so vulnerable against the facts which are mentioned above. After all, that's what your leadership is teaching you since 1965. Nothing can stop you from reciting your beautiful superman stories but I'm actually being neutral here. No propoganda, no personal opinions, just some neutral FACTS. You people won't be willing to accept that Indians captured a lot of your land in 1965 war and that your armour was nearly paralyzed. Yes, your air force did well but that isn't everything.. Dd knight (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this?

This article is not written in an appreciable way. Battle of Lahore, who won it and who lose it , is an open secret. If Indian had gained any advantage then it would have contained or captured its objective, but it is not the case. If Pakistani fails according to this article then it must be stalemate and not a tactical victory for India. The references used corresponds to the entire performance of India in the War and not in a single battle. Does anyone knows proper meaning of TACTICAL? M.A.R 1993 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Tactical Victory

For those who are confused about what is a tactical victory let me redirect you to the following pages

• tactical victory
• strategic victory
• decisive victory

Tactical victory comes when mission objectives are almost or completely achieved, while strategic victory comes when one side considerably destroys enemy's ability to continue war. On this front India achieved it's objective of capturing considerable Pakistani territory and distracting Pakistani forces in Kashmir and thus a tactical victory was reached. However, neither India's, nor Pakistan's ability was disturbed solely because of this battle so it was a strategic stalemate.

Results of battles should not be confused with results of overall war. One side can at times can win more battles than other side but can still be defeated in war. This war was certainly a stalemate because each side held considerable territory of the other, however on this front India was in control of Pakistani territory till ceasefire was announced.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems some editors cannot understand the difference between tactical and strategic victory or are not satisfied with the present information in the result section. Thus I am adding a neutral source and removing all non sourced data. Also note that all reliable or important sources cannot be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What objective of India was at Lahore front? According to Official history of 1965 war written by India, Its objective was to capture or contain Lahore. Both of it didn't happen as in south Khem Karan was in Pakistani hands and in north Chawinda battle had been lost by India. India had reached at BRB canal on the very first day of war after which it could not move farther till ceasefire. So Lahore didn't fell which was its objective. So war was a stalemate. Vaan paargh has discussed an overall view of war so if Indian achieved tactical success at critical Lahore front then how war became Stalemate? No doubt source is correct but its use in not.M.A.R 1993 (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted here that the text which was already placed in the result section of various battles of 1965 war was reached after through discussions with multiple editors including Pakistani editors. If you visit the talk pages of various you can see a detailed discussion on different types of battle results.

Regarding Indian objectives at Lahore front, you must note that India did not open the Lahore front to capture Lahore but rather distract Pakistani Army's resources and HQ's attention away from Operation Grand Slam were Indian's were at disadvantage due to topography of the region. India was successful in distracting Pakistani HQ's attention from the offence at Operation Grand Slam to defense of Lahore. The 3 pronged counterattack which Pakistan launched immediately after Indian offensive was destroyed at Burki, Dograi and Khem Karan with most successful counterattack managing to moving only 5 km into Indian territory at Khem Karan before being destroyed while India was in control 500 sq km around Burki, Dograi and Phillora.

Capturing and retaining large enemy territory is a tactical victory in itself even if you discount the distraction it created. Also read the dates carefully as Pakistani counterattack had begun on 8 th and ended on 10 th while India continued to advance and captured Burki, Dograi and Phillora around 11-12. It was not as if India only held on to the land captured on 6th but rather Indian Army continued to advance from Phillora to Chawinda between 12-22 while Pakistan was playing completely defensive at Chawinda till 22 and was unable to carry any further counterattack.

Also note that the battlefield was not static one with no side being able to move like in WW1 but rather a highly dynamic one with Pakistan launching initial counterattack till 10 to regain lost territory and India continuing their advance from 11 onwards.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are generating your own views about the war. Indian attack at chawinda was completely frustrated accepted by Indian official version of war and Pakistan launching subsequent counter offensive. Ceasefire hindered further attacks. At Lahore and Sialkot, Pakistan's basic aim was defense and holding its ground. Pakistan launched a counter attack at Khem Karan and seized size able territories basic aim of which was relieve Lahore sector. As i stated earlier that India approached east bank of BRB canal on the very first day of war from where it could not move till ceasefire. Please note that Neutral references you added first are copyrighted material and could not be accessed by others and second they discussed and overall view of war and not at Lahore front alone. So please provide a reliable or neutral source which is not copyrighted. One important thing is that no Pakistani would agree truly to Indian Victory at Lahore because it is as important in country's history as Stalingrad is in Russia's history. If they add Pakistani Victory you begin to threaten them. Leading Pakistan officers and defense analysts always claimed victory of Pakistan at Lahore Front.

• http://books.google.com.pk/books?ei=38ieTYz6GMnYrQep4uj9Ag&ct=result&id=m7AJk5Bza3UC&dq=Seventeen+september+days+by+M.+Aziz+beg&q=Frigate#search_anchor
• http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=U8U9AAAAMAAJ&q=Pakistan+meets+indian+challenge+by+Gulzar+ahmed&dq=Pakistan+meets+indian+challenge+by+Gulzar+ahmed&hl=en&ei=VsmeTc2RN8XorQfQ0uTxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA

Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to provide more sources. 7 sources for result section are redundant even by wikipedia standards. I have added your points that Indian units reached canal on 6th and mentioned the amount of land captured at Khem Karan. I don't see how Pakistani Navy could be active at landlocked Lahore according to your first source. Moreover, the source has already been discussed here The second source mentions the PR campaign by India during 1965 as shown here while not covering the main war including Operations Gibraltar or Grand Slam as shown here and thus cannot be used in the article. I found no source where Pakistanis compared Lahore to Stalingrad, maybe you can find one.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the reference provided. I am not saying that Pakistan was active at Lahore since the website search was bit old and i hoped for a display of commonsense from you. The things i said above are present in these books if you managed to read them fully. Moreover,the reference regarding to victory by Indians would absolutely defend Indian side. If India really won a tactical victory at this front then please provide an un-copyrighted source so i could remove my misunderstanding. Otherwise keep providing copyrighted material is not according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Just closing the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Battle of Lahore → Lahore Front —

I would propose that the title of the article should be changed from "Battle of Lahore" to "Lahore Front" since no battle took place in the main city of Lahore itself. The the article actually consists of information about battles that took place in Lahore district during the Indian advance towards Lahore during the 1965 war including Battle of Burki, Battle of Phillora, Battle of Chawinda, Battle of Ichogil Bund and Battle of Asal Uttar.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mixing

I think that battle at Lahore and sialkot's front has been mixed. Indian advance was halted at Chawinda where its entire operation was grounded and war turned to stalemate. Even Indian reliable sources admitted Indian defeat at this front. Indian objective of capturing Grand Trunk road from north didn't succeed. So it is not right to add unapproachable sources. Things still remain same. No source admitted Indian tactical victory at Lahore or sialkot in latter's case India' s own 1st armored division was mauled. So battle at Lahore should be provided properly here. For further notice read The M47 and M48 Patton tank by Steve Zaloga Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I PROTEST AS THE REFERENCES PROVIDED FOR INDO_PAK WAR LAHORE FRONT ARE MISUSED AND MANIPULATED TO SUPPORT OWN POV. IT IS AN INTELLECTUAL KILLING. IT MUST BE REMOVED. NOT A SINGLE NEUTRAL WRITER ADMITTED TACTICAL INDIAN VICTORY M.A.R 1993 (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Go through the sources carefully. There are multiple neutral authors and sites as well as at least 2 encyclopaedia including highly reliable The new encyclopaedia Britannica.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC) The sources which are mentioned in the infobox for the outcome didn't mention it. I have gone through these. They what I've said earlier provides an overall picture of war and not the lahore front alone. Things are not inferred from a source but are pointed out as they have been mentioned there hitherto. So these are manipulations. Thank you. M.A.R 1993 (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin comment (via ANI)

Firstly let's get the admin stuff out of the way: M.A.R 1993, please stop edit-warring to remove sourced content. What you've been doing is against site policy and if it continues your account will be blocked.

Secondly, if (with my editor's hat on) I can offer some advice: I've found in other military history articles that the infobox can sometimes be too limiting when trying to describe the outcome of a conflict. It's also something that comes up fairly regularly at WT:MILHIST. Obviously the article should follow the preponderance of opinion in reliable sources, but where there are significant differences of reliable opinion it's perfectly acceptable to put something like "See Aftermath" and discuss the outcome in more detail there. If terms like "tactical victory", "strategic victory" etc are disputed or don't tell the whole story, we're under no obligation to use them. I don't know how much this applies to this article, but I hope it helps. Best, EyeSerene^talk 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Dograi

I have added the battle of dograi to this article. ihave used reliable sources like War despatches by Lt.Gen. Harbaksh singh and official history of 1965 war. i have tried to get pakistani sources but hardly any source mentions the battle...Ah amin briefly mentions it in his article http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/pakistan/aminkhemkaran.html he admits that both sides suffered very heavy casulties.but does not write anymore, i would like it if editors from across the border could get some sources to show their POV. cheers Panzerkampf1990 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Source

In this Article the whole section "Prelude" references to a single source. The source contains the information related to the subject, but the contents in the section represents an entire different story irrelevant to the source. I think we are having a case of WP:ORIGINALSYN. HIAS (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Which version of the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the GlobalSecurity.org source does not supports the content it is cited for, which I why I put those {{failed verification}} tags. But you're not supposed to directly copy from the source; please read WP:COPYVIO. Also, please show me where it says in MOS:IMGSIZE that lead image should not be more than 220 px? —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Stuff happens. Probably best to write it based on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609073753/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter11.pdf to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/History/1965War/PDF/1965Chapter11.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

good article?

Would any one want to nominate this as good article? Thoughts? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 12:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Major General Niranjan Prasad Jeep Under Pakistan Control.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1965 war Indo-Pak.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Counterattack?

User:Pak-Egale, who has been edit-warring on multiple fronts, add this [totally unsourced section], which was then reverted by an IP. So I decided to investigate.

The 1966 agreement on disengagement says this:

(Note: In the Amritsar—Lahore sector this 1,000 yards withdrawal will be modified so that Pakistan troops who are actually on the west bank of the BRB Canal and Indian troops who are on the east bank of the BRB Canal facing each other will withdraw all armed personnel off the embankment to a distance of 200 yards on each side. Unarmed personnel may, however, live, move and work in this area. The same principle will apply in Sulaimanki-Fazilka sector, Hussainiwala sector and Khem Karan sector.)

So, some 6-12 months after the cease-fire, the Indian and Pakistani armies were still facing each other across the BRB canal. Where is this BRB canal? These two links show it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Pak-Egale for edit warring across multiple articles and have ec-protected this article for three days in order to allow seasoned editors to review the article with an eye towards WP:RS and WP:NPOV.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Jeep saga

File:Indian Army Major General Niranjan Prasad Jeep captured by Pak Army.jpg

The same unsourced section also claimed: Indian Army suffer very heavy losses and panic stricken Indian Army, including their Commander, Major General Narinjan Parshad, retreated in complete disorder, abandoning his command jeep which forms an exhibit in the museum in Pakistan.

What is the story with the jeep? Farooq Bajwa says this:

During the fighting 38 Brigade lost contact with headquarters of 15 Division and so Prasad set out himself in the afternoon of 7 September to try and locate its whereabouts with a small group. Unfortunately for the hapless Prasad, Pakistani forces ambushed the team and not only captured twelve men and four jeeps but also, even more embarrassingly for the Indians, captured Prasad's briefcase and notebook and then broadcast the contents on Pakistan Radio.

If only one could win wars by generating propaganda, Pakistan would win hands down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1965 war.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Aalim007 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't say that India went to United Nations for a ceasefire after heavy indian losses like planes, tanks. It is biased towards India.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 15:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Article name

Not sure if there's already been a standing consensus on this, but I suggest moving the article from Lahore Front, as it currently is, to Battle of Lahore (1965). I know that the fighting in Lahore consisted of multiple battles, but it was not dragged out long enough to be considered as a dedicated theatre of battle (e.g. like the Eastern Front of World War II). My argument here runs thin but it's a topic I felt was better to bring up here instead of outright moving the page without consensus. Zeex.rice (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A "Front" doesn't have to be a dedicated theatre. It just means one axis along which the war occurred.

I don't see any sources for the term "Battle of Lahore". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020 Suggestion

Please add a Notes section to this article above the references with a {{reflist|group=Note}} tag. HouseBlaster (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

Hello the result of the battle says Indian victory on the Lahore Front but the sources cited doesn't say it. So I request you to change the result to stalemate with the sources used in this edit [1] 111.119.183.62 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This does not require a consensus as the source doesn't say what the result is saying it is just a misuse of a source. 111.119.183.21 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed several of the sources for the victory, and it's pretty clear. If you want to provide other sources and change the article, that will require consensus. Additonally, please do not reopen a closed request until there is a clear consensus to implement the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Pakistani Brigadier A.A.K. Niazi has not been linked

"Pakistani Brigadier A.A.K. Niazi" is mentioned in the article without linking it to the man himself PreserveOurHistory (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 09:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

How can the entire Lahore front get one Coordinate? Crainsaw (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

"Indian victory" is a false narrative

Can you explain us how was it an Indian victory when the Indian forces failed to capture the "city of Lahore" as their target was the cantonment of Lahore (basically Lahore city). Capturing some villages, towns in the district of Lahore is not equivalent to capturing the proper city of Lahore! Please any neutral admin fix this article and remove the Indian narrative on this article. 182.181.149.84 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)