Talk:Indo-Bangladesh Border Conflict of 2001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

New Article.

I was suprised that this wasnt already written, I would appreciate all the help from fellow wikipedians in "completing" this article and making it a much more informative article.

Thanks.

Contents 1 Change Of Name from War to Conflict? 2 Bangladesh won?? 3 Name change 4 So Who Won This? 5 Pictures

[edit] Change Of Name from War to Conflict?

The name of the article has been changed without consultation on the talk page, Its been changed from 'War' to 'conflict', The person responsible claims there was no 'declaration of war' thus it was renamed 'conflict', So if this is the case, Kargil War should be re-named conflict since there was no declaration of War there either.

I sense double standards at work here and on the Kargil war page.

If this changes name from war to conflict so must that.

S Seagal 04:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

The situations are entirely different and you know it. In the Kargil war there ere multiple battles, significant forces were deployed and significant casualties occurred. This was a mere border spat with only 23 deaths. The two situations were entirely different.Hkelkar 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, there was no declaration of war in either Kargil war or the Indo-Bangladesh war, but both must be referred to as wars in the interest of wikipedia neutrality, one can not call something a war, and another a conflict if in both instances thier was no formal declaration of war. The changes in article title here are just as applicable there.

You say there was no "significant forces", 20,000 Bangladeshis troops is that not significant? in Kargil war there were 30000 Indian troops just slightly more than the number of Bangali troops in the Indo-Bangladesh War.

I reverting the title of the article back to its original until this issue is resolved here on the talk page. It would have been best if you had taken other wikipedians into confidence before moving articles around to suit your own political leanings.

S Seagal 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Wikipedia states that proper evidence through sources be provided for such statement like calling a conflict a war. Regarding Kargil you will find many such articles that state it as a war. But this is a minor border fight only. Chanakyathegreat 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh won??

Sure, sure! And Ahmad Shah Abdali smokes hookah and does the disco, right? Show me a single source where victory is specifically attached to Bangladesh!Plus, all that "demoralized" crap is just that. More crap. Again, quote me a source per [{WP:V]] and WP:RS. If you continue to be disruptive and disrespectful to wikipedia policies admin aarbcomm will be required.Hkelkar 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not up to me to decide who won the war, let the reader decide that.

After India's defeat, the Indian people were heavily demoralized, its armed forces heavily discredited. Prime Minister Vajaypee also faced harsh accusations from government officials. Many in India had called for 'serious introspection' of the Indian armed forces for its 'poor tactics and pathetic intelligence'. Many newspapers such as the Hindustan Times blamed excessive deployment round the year and lack of training for its defeat. ^[1]

I must protest your removal of sourced information, the source there clearly talks of the huge Indian intelligence failures and names them "pathetic". Its not me but a source of the Indian government that is saying this, its not even a Bangladeshi source.

S Seagal 05:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

But it doesn;t attribute a victory. read WP:NOR.Hkelkar

Ive read those links numerous times, thanks.

Lets take the example of this war and the kargil war.

In Both Instances the follow were the EXACTLY the same:

• No public declaration of war
• No change in borders
• Thousands of troops mobilized on both sides
• Intelligence failures

If the cause is the same, if the reasons are the same, and the outcome is the same, Wikipedia in the interest of neutrality must treat both the same. So this article must remain called a war until the changes are made here and there. We cant call some skirmishes wars that make our countries look good, and conflicts mere border 'spats' ones that make us look bad.

S Seagal 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

OK. I agree with you about that part. I am fine with keeping the name "war". Only that.Hkelkar 05:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We could compromise make changes to both articles in the interests of fairness and neutrality. Namely the following:

• The Name of both Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 and Kargil War will be changed to 'conflict'
• The Outcome of both Indo-Bangladesh War of 2001 and Kargil War will be changed to Status quo ante bellum.

Status quo ante bellum means no change in border and things went back to normal the way they were.

However one can not make a change here and leave the other article the same, the changes here are just as applicable there and vice-versa.

Best Regards S Seagal 05:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Well I did not edit that article, but I don't necessarily disagree with you on this one. You can discuss in that page and I will tryo to join in.Hkelkar 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I have taken the liberty of a name change since this isn't referred to as a War. Officially Bangladesh denies its involvement and such spontaneous attacks by troops are hardly classified as war. Further sources refer to the incident as a "conflict", not war. See Chola incidenthere, for a very similar limited scale border conflict between India and China. Surely we can't classify every clash of arms as "War". Idleguy 06:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy,

You just undid alot of peoples work here, We already are discussing this issue above, Please read the talk page and contribute before waltzing in and making changes.

I have raised the point on the Kargil War also. S Seagal 06:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Well bear in mind that I did not necessarily support the title "War". it's just that the term "War" is bandied about on wikipedia a lot already and was too tired to argue anymore and it's a minor point anyways. Besides, Seagal does make a valid point about Kargil War as it wasn;t a declared war but essentially a border conflict also.Hkelkar 06:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Siachen will also fall into that category like Kargil and this one, But it does seem that some people want wars that make them look good, and 'spats', 'skirmishes' ones that make them look bad.

S Seagal 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Seagal

Well my dismissal of the little spat was hardly motivated by nationalism but by the simple fact that the casualties were small. I mean, 24 people? More people die in lorry accidents in a week than that, dude.However, like I said, a minor point IMHO.Hkelkar 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not attempt to rewrite history or the names used to refer to historical events. As I said, this border conflict is similar to the Chola Incident between India and China. Siachen Glacier too isn't a war. Next up, we'll be renaming battles as wars! I've replied in detail in the kargil War talk page too. Idleguy 06:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Other examples of such border incidents are Sino-Soviet border conflict, Thailand-Myanamar, some countries in South America and Africa. They are ALL termed as border conflicts/incidents. Not war. Idleguy 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So why isnt Kargil renamed likewise?

you want wars that make you look good, and 'spats', 'skirmishes', 'conflicts' ones that make them look bad?

S Seagal 07:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

The Kargil war is named so because the entire media calls it a war. Here's a crude test - "Kargil war" returns more ghits that kargil conflict. But this article is about the Indo-Bangliadeshi border conflict. Please do not drag the Kargil issue here. If you have problems with the naming of the Kargil war, then take up the issue there. The burden is upon you to prove why this article should be titled a war and not a border conflict. I could not find a single ghit calling the conflict a war. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Who Won This?

I've just read this article that i created and others helped edit,

but the question that goes through my mind and other readers would be: So Who Won This?

S Seagal 08:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Thanks

I don't think anyone "won" this. The whole thing ended in a stalemate, and the land borders reverted to the status quo before the conflict. --Ragib 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, Wikipedia is for simply stating the facts of the incident, not making judgments on either side. Per WP:NPOV, no one should impose their interpretation, their version of events. Rama's arrow 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I've found some pictures of BSF troops killed and hung upside down on Bamboo poles by Bengalis I will upload the images and put the pictures on the page.

I also plan on expanding this article considerably.

thanksS Seagal 08:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)