Talk:Operation Blue Star/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Casualties

Stop adding casualties without proper citations and real figures. Don't add out of context quote with no scholarly backing. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the sources cited. They say those casualties for the Operation. Stop removing sourced information and POV pushing. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Also you say tell the page. I have provided the page from Ved Marwah and from a secondary source in the citation. Also a secondary source is enough. No primary source is required. Read WP:SECONDARY. (Although I have provided one as you were asking last time) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

“It had adequate manpower and equipment to deal with the situation. They had already done detailed investigations,

including an aerial survey But 35 percent casualties in a Division-level operation cannot be called a well-planned and well-executed operation.” From Ved Marwah Uncivil Wars page 172

”The government's White Paper issued in July, 1984, put the soldiers' casualties at 83 and civilian deaths at 492 at the Golden Temple. 86 civilians and 249 Army men were injured. 1,283 men and 309 women were arrested.

Associated Press correspondent Brahm Chellany put the figure of Army deaths at around 200. In September that year, addressing the National Student Union of India session in Nagpur, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi mentioned that 700 soldiers had lost their lives in Operation Bluestar. (Quoted in "The Tragedy of Punjab", Kuldip Nayar and Khushwant Singh.) More gallantry awards were given for Operation Bluestar than for combined awards for India's Four wars of 1948, 1962, 1965 and 1971. This is brought out in his book by Air Marshal Malhotra.

In his book Uncivil Wars, Ved Marwah improves on the late prime minister's figure when he writes: "but 35 per cent casualties in a division-level operation cannot be called a well-planned and well-executed operation." (A division is comprised of 16,000 troops).” From Politics of a Genocide

It is clear they are talking about army casualties and that the army suffered 35% casualties. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How come? In what context is he talking about 35% casualties? You are using his words out of context, is he specifically saying that 35% soldiers of Indian army died in the operation or 35% of an army division was lost? Also, how is Ved Marwah an authority on the figure of the casualties? He was a police officer not an army man, and he was not in charge of the operation in any capacity. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I never said he was in charge of it. I said per beside his name meaning it is just the casualties per him. I have provided context by giving the full quote and line before. The secondary source also makes it clear that he is talking about army casualties. Also there was only one division involved in the operation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The secondary source is only interpreting his quote as per former's bias, doing his own research, who is this second source anyway? Is he a reliable source and figure of authority on history and politics? It is as simple as this, 35% soldiers dying is a huge claim, has Marwah clearly made this claim? No, he is only talking about 35% casualties, for whom is he using 35% is not defined. You are doing your own research by interpreting his words as per your bias. Also, he is not a figure of authority on the operation as he was not involved nor did he head any recognised body which was involved in the counting of the casualties. There is no need to mention his "opinion" in the infobox. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not interpreting his quote. The secondary source is based on what he said. He may not be involved in the operation but he has held many high level government posts and obviously would know of the true figure. Also the author of the secondary source was an MLA of Punjab. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So what, being an MLA doesn't make you privy of all the information. He wasn't part of the government when the operation happened. A fact remains fact, you can't interpret it. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because someone wasn’t part of the government at the tome doesn’t mean they don’t know. Ved Marwah is talking about army casualties and so is the secondary source. Rad the quotes I provided again. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

By that logic anybody would come up with any number for either side. One has to be a reliable and recognised source. Ved Marwah is not talking about army casualties explicitly, you are putting words in the late cop's mouth/pen/typewriter by using his words out of context. This is called original research, for which you were warned last time by other editors also. No where does Marwah explicitly say that the army lost 35% troops. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

How is using a secondary source and Ved Marwah’s work original research. The secondary source is by Inderjeet Singh Jaijee a reliable author. It is not up to us to interpret the primary source. Read WP:Secondary. From the sentences before it is clear Ved Marwah is talking about army casualties. The secondary source says the same thing. Stop disregarding the secondary source and the quote I provided. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. Who are you basing your edit on? Inderjeet Singh Jaijee's interpretation or Ved Marwah? CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am basing it on the two quotes I provided from a primary and secondary source

We are basically arguing with no end. Give me 1 point on why the figure provided by the two sources shouldn’t be used CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

They are not two sources, one is based on the other. Jaijee himself is depending on Marwah. Again, Marwah is not explicitly saying about the casualties, he is only using the phrase "35% casualties" with no clear defined base. He is not saying that 35% troops of Indian forces were KIA. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well from the context it is quite clear he is talking about army casualties. Also a secondary source from a reliable author says he is talking about military casualties. So I would rather go with the context and the secondary source than others interpretation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He is not talking about army casualties explicitly. It would have been mentioned clearly by him had that been the case. A claim of 35% troops being KIA by a former bureaucrat would not have remained unnoticed or unchallenged in public eye, everybody would have picked it up. Jaijee is only basing his comment on just one quote of Marwah without latter's confirmation, also, he is not a reliable author as he is not an authority on the issue. Only the numbers from government or recognised institutions can be used for casualties in infobox of conflicts. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"... But 35 percent casualties in a Division-level operation cannot be called a well-planned and well-executed operation"

35% casualties of whom? The army, police, the general public(worshippers), terrorists or all the combatants involved. Marwah has not explicitly mentioned it. It is all about interpretation. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the context. He is talking about military. Also stop ignoring the secondary source. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No, he is not, he would have explicitly said so. Who makes a claim about 35% troops being KIAs and doesn't use simple straight words. Secondary source is not reliable and is totally basing his calculation on one phrase of the first source without latter's confirmation. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The context makes it quite clear he is talking about the military. A secondary source also confirms the above. It is not up to us to interpret primary sources. Read wikipedia’s policy on that. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Secondary source has no authority to confirm it. The confirmation for the interpretation has to come from Marwah. Again, Marwah has not clearly stated 35% casualties of "whom". Troops, pilgrims, terrorists or all of them and if army, then what was his base for 35%? A unit, everybody posted in Amritsar, all those who entered in the temple premises etc. You are just using his phrase "35% casualties" to present it as a confirmed fact. CrashLandingNew (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

All of your points fall flat on your head. Ved Marwah’s language may be a little vague, but from the context it is clear he is talking about military casualties. This is supported by a secondary source which is used very much in this article and is from a reliable author. I don’t see why this debate should continue further. The information is sourced and supported. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I doubt we can come to a resolution since last time we couldn’t. Why don’t we get a neutral third-party involved? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew Thoughts? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We can invite editors at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to join in the discussion CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No. We should go Wikipedia

:Dispute resolution noticeboard CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually @CrashLandingNew let’s go to the India related topic notice board. I will make a post not saying much. Just linking the talk page and saying there is a conflict. That fine with you? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am going to invite a third party first and see if they want to get involved. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Added to WP:3 CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Noticeboard for India-related topics is more suitable as it has people who are aware of India related topics, hence the name. Starting a discussion there. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point one thing out: Casualties cannot be equated with fatalities. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

True. The 35% casualties includes killed and

wounded. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you share your opinion on this. We need to form a consensus. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

All of your points fall flat on your head. Ved Marwah’s language may be a little vague, but from the context it is clear he is talking about military casualties. This is supported by a secondary source which is used very much in this article and is from a reliable author. I don’t see why this debate should continue further. The information is sourced and supported. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Third Opinion

@CanadianSingh1469, @CrashLandingNew

I have read through your discussion, the relevant sections of the article and of Jaijee's book (available online here). I don't have access to Marwah's book.

Before I share my observations and proposals I want to point out that I am utterly unfamiliar with the history of India and had never even heard of this incident before reading your request for a third opinion.

Observations

• Regarding the interpretation of Marwah's statement it seems clear to me that he refers to military casualties of government troops. Since he doesn't give specifics we have to assume that he is talking about fatalities and injuries. We also have to assume that the majority of casualties were injuries. The fatality to injury ratio in official numbers is roughly 1:3, so we should assume that at least three fourths of the casualties were injuries. He calls it a "division-level operation" and Jaijee gives the number of 16,000 troops for a division. In my opinion that does not necessarily mean that 16,000 men were actually involved in direct action. So we should not try to derive actual numbers from the percentage. (If we take the 1:3 ratio and the official number of 700 killed there would have been 8,000 troops involved. If we take the 1:3 ratio and 16,000 troops there would have been 1400 killed. So the discrepancy could be due to the assumption that all 16,000 troops were involved. If only half of them were involved the 35% would not contradict the official number.)
• Since Jaijee merely repeats Marwah's estimate we cannot interpret him as endorsing the number let alone as a source to support Marwah's number.
• According to Jaijee Marwah was "then a senior police officer on the prime minister's select committee for monitoring Punjab affairs". That means we should not refer to him as "independent". Further Jaijee writes:

Interestingly, Ved Marwah cites the government's White Paper as the source of his figures[.]

The White Paper I have quoted from is available in libraries and anyone can go and see the figures for himself. And yet Ved Marwah is not a man to simply make up figures out of his head. Are there two White Papers ... one for the general public and one for privileged circulation?

Proposals

• Currently the article says "Per Ved Marwah 35% of the army was killed." Two points:
  • As pointed out above "killed" is incorrect.
  • We should give some context.
    • Proposed reformulation:

Ved Marwah, at the time a government adviser on Punjab affairs, writes of 35% casualties referring to an unspecified government White Paper.

• The infobox currently contains the original and the revised government numbers. Given that these numbers are disputed we should add information. I propose either of the following additions:
  • 35% casualties according to Ved Marwah
  • Independent sources give higher numbers

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. In the infobox it should say

• 35% casualties according to Ved Marwah and later in the article it can say

In the article it can say: Ved Marwah, at the time a government adviser on Punjab affairs, writes of 35% casualties referring to an unspecified government White Paper. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Brar’s entire division was involved in the Operation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

35% casualties of whom? He has not specified it, he has not said that 35% of the army involved faced casualties, how can you add it when his a vague information? CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It should not be in infobox as it is vague information with no clear base defined. Marwah is talking about 35% casualties but he has not defined the base for this 35%, is he referring to army, the troops inside, the general public. It's a vague information, the quote from his book can be mentioned in the casualties section but it shall not be in the infobox as it is vague and not clearly defined. Also, Marwah has written this information as a personal opinion not as representative of an authorised agency or a recognised independent body. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The only base that even remotely makes sense are the government troops involved. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

See, we have to make "sense" of it by applying our POV. It is not an explicit and clear information, it's a vague line in Marwah's book with no clear meaning. If an editor insists, it can be mentioned in the casualties section but shall not be a part of infobox which has widely accepted figures by respectable institutions for every conflict. Also, I repeat, Marwah was just a cop with no involvement in the military operation under discussion. The whole thing is just misleading for the readers. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling Marwah "just a cop" is, assuming the information given in Jaijee's book (Marwah was on the prime minister's select committee for monitoring Punjab affairs) is correct, false. And I do not believe that we need to apply our POV to make sense of his statement because in my opinion no other interpretation makes sense. It is the natural way to interpret the statement, interpreting it in any other way would require a very substantial justification and I see none. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course you can always try getting more people to weigh in via a request for comments. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

How can we add figures for a historical event by interpreting a statement in a book? If Marwah meant 35% casualties for army, he would have explicitly said it, without leaving anything for anybody to interpret. We can't add casualty figures on the basis of our interpretation of just one vague statement in a book. If Marwah was part of the state, were his figures corroborated by the state? Apparently not. Is he saying that Government didn't reveal the full numbers, no he is not. You can't add figures just on the basis of one vague line in a book. CrashLandingNew (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@CanadianSingh1469, @CrashLandingNew I have removed the third opinion request. Given that there is still no consensus I recommend you post a request for comments. Please make sure you agree on what the options should be and on the summary of the positions. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, shall infobox include figures of casualties by any one person instead of an organisation or government body, anybody not just the man in discussion? CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@CrashLandingNew Well it is an independent casualties number. Which is supported by some sources. Maybe we can write it as Independent Casualties: 35%. I have found a few more sources that state this percentage so I suppose this could be a good compromise. What do you think of what I have proposed? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no "number". Marwah, an ex-cop is talking about 35% casualties with an unspecified base. Nowhere is it specifically mentioned that 35% troops of a division became casualty in the conflict. CrashLandingNew (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)