Talk:Pakistan Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] POV

I think 203.99.49.41 is trying to resort to POV statements of his own. With many authors and various official statements including Pakistan and Indian counts specifying that the losses of both - which is included in the article, one would presume there would be no room for doubt. However 203.99.49.41 is trying to delete references to the war and trying to alter history in the process by writing very opinionated views. I have said it was "overrun" which signifies that the pakistan navy was overpowered both by numbers and significant hits. Instead the said user tries to use 2 sentences to explain the same and with lots of spelling errors and factual inaccuracies with poor incomplete english. I suggest that this user read information from every point, official as well as neutral on this war to understand that pakistan navy truly lost spectacularly and that I was trying to be as neutral as possible in covering the defeat. The truth might be hard to swallow, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.--Idleguy 12:08, May 30, 2005 (UTC)


I think Idleguy is using his point of view rather than any historical lit. The Indian Navy's loss were not "negligable" they lost three ships to Pakistans one. The "Half" of a fleet idleguy loves to refer to means the gunboats basically converted fishing trawlers) which the Indians sank in the East. In the West, only the PNS Kyhber was a loss (missile hit her magazine) other ships were damaged but survived mainly due to a fortunate event on the PNS Dacca when it was realized that a Machine Gun could intercept an incoming missile in its last approach phase. Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapons_system

The Indian losses included INS Khurki, INS Kipran which was damaged beyond repair (by the PNS Hangor, though I may be wroong on that).

The Indian Navy performed well in 71 no doubt. But so did Pakistan Navy in the West at least. The fact remains the ships sunk were mostly gunboats, not capital ships. The Shahjahan was damaged but survived. Idleguy is using his own interpretation of the 71 score. A single click on his profile will reveal why.

Just quote your sources, cuz this is not a fight but a representation of history. I included 4 references to the war, 2 of them were infact from Pakistan authors and 1 from a neutral organization while the final reference quoted the official losses as reported by Pakistan Navy and Indian Navy. Now how can this be a biased view? Instead you go ahead delete the very references. Your reference of CIWS is about a brave incident, but the scope of this conflict cannot cover every such incident. for instance PNS RAJSHAHI is known to have had a dramatic escape, but like I mentioned a war is not about isolated incidents but the sum of it all. And the fact remains that pakistan navy lost badly. Infact among all the 3 divisions, the Navy suffered the relatively most casulities going by percentage (not numbers) of both personnel and fleet lost.
As for your claim that "In the West, only the PNS Kyhber was a loss" and that pakistan navy did well in the western theatre, compared to the eastern side, please remember it is only partially true. Operation Trident, the name given to the attack on Karachi resulted in the destruction of 2 destroyers and a minesweeper. It was followed up with Operation Python which was also successful. both were via the arabian sea. Weighing these losses against the only success in the western front, i.e. sinking of INS Kurki and claiming that the western side did well due to this isolated incident, is nothing short of propaganda.
Finally I have researched the entire article to bring the facts to light, your "research" dwells more on where I come from. Also while I do have a profile here, I suppose you don't. It does not matter from which country a contributor is as long as the information is unbiased. If americans won the world war, it has to be stated so, irrespective of whether the contributor is american. How does an article retain a NPOV? By quoting neutral references and official statements. According to Wikipedia policy, "Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source" You have neither found facts from any neutral side nor cited sources, so your argument doesn't hold water. Your "gunboat" controversy can easily be resolved if you can quote the sources and found to be neutral. I would gladly include it without hesitation. the quote of "pakistan lost half its navy" was taken from a Pakistan author's book. If you can't accept a Pakistani critical comment do I then replace it with an Indian comment?
And going by your reponse I assume you haven't read any of the sources given but still stick to your version. Also by deleting the whole body of the article you are violating Wikipedia's rules on NPOV "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" which clearly advocates against such practices of deleting. If you are going to read only the pakistan navy's official website then you can be a frog in a well since they only mention the sinking of INS Kurki. Be neutral, cite your sources and accept the truth. --Idleguy 08:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


Er Idleguy. Only two destroyers were hit by missiles. PNS Khyber(sunk) PNS Shahjahan(written off) as opposed to INS Khurki (sunk) INS Kipran (written off). Operation Trident resulted in about 1 caualty that was a minessweeper. Your nuetral source was a Russian one, anyone with a knowledge of the Sub-Continient knows that the Ruskies are hardly "neutral". As for Pakistani, only Tariq Ali mentions "half" the fleet (he is an ex-student leader) not a Navy Man. I have read all the article you have "referenced". THe Pakistani ones mention the threat posewd by Indian missles ( they were real), not the half a fleet loss as you like to say. After the Khyber loss the events on the Dacca showed the Navy how to handle the missiles and this led to the development of CIWS.

Not only were SLOCs in the West open, the Indian Navy did not blockade Karachi, they fired a pair of missile at it. Lets stick to REAL history not the Bollywood kind.
  • I never mentioned they blockaded Karachi anywhere. Not in this article or anywhere else related. The operation was aimed at attacking Karachi, and to be more specific the harbour and the naval vessels. In the process both warships as well as merchant navy vessels were destroyed or damaged. The blockade was on Dhaka. there is a difference between blockade and attack.
And of the 2 neutral assessments, one was from b.harry only the other was from an ex-russian source. even that source simply quoted both indian and pakistan's OFFICIAL versions and was not an assessment. one has to remember that no naval officer in his right mind would accept that they lost badly and so is the case with the other pakistan source.
thirdly in the context of references, people in pakistan conveniently forget the Hamood-ur-Rahman Commission Report of 1971, which for information was formed by Bhutto to ascertain the facts. It stopped short of stating that a commander of the pakistan navy actually ran away from his post. "That an inquiry be held into the circumstances under which Commander Gul Zareen of the Pakistan Navy was carried from Khulna to Singapore on the 7th of December, 1971, by a French ship called M.V. Fortescue, thus abandoning his duties at PNS Titumir Naval Base, Khulna." The full report which is covered up in pakistan can be read here http://www.bangla2000.com/Bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm
please re-read the 2nd reference from the pakistan commander(retd) which states that PNZ Khyber the destroyer was lost. if u dig deep collaborating other sources into how and where it was lost, u will come to know that it was lost in the western theatre during operation trident. PNS Shajahan another destroyer was also destroyed in the same operation apart from the minesweeper PNS Muhafiz which was lost in the same conflict. this again from a pakistan source. finally, tariq ali is an eminent scholar and not just an "ex-student leader" and has written atleast a dozen books on political science and history. it might be that in pakistan freedom of the press and freedom of governance is lacking but the facts cannot be dismissed summarily. --Idleguy 06:21, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all the Humood-ur-Rehman commission report is NOT covered up in Pakistan, it was declassified in 1999.(the thirty year rule)

   The war aims of the Indian Navy were to blockade the port of Karachi and cut maritime comunications. The aim of the PN was to prevent this from happening. While the PNS Khyber was sunk and the Shahjahan damaged, the Indian Navy lost Khurki and Kipran damaged. After this the Indian Navy broke off and there was not any action by either Navy since they were all to scared the Pakistanis of Indian Missiles and the Indians of the Pakstani Subs. So what happned. A tactical draw, but a strategic victory for Pakistan since it ensured that Maritime communictaions were not servered nor Karachi blocked. IN other words the Navy achieved its objective.

 Yes there were officers who behaved badly as did ones who fought well and bravely. This is true of all navies and indeed all organizations. I can agree that the Navy was short-sighted in not having a stronger force in the East, but till 71 niether had expected to ever fight there. 

  And there is freedom of the press, pls do not believe the so called Freedom Rankings, they only compare the Wests attitudes and than randomly place the rest (check out India's ranking if you don't believe me.) 

  The official Pakistani source cites the loss of the Khyber amd PNS Ghazi and the Indian losses. This is not disputed by me at all. What is are your asserations that

i) The Indian Navy suffered "negligable" loss. That is completely false.

ii) The Pakistan Navy 'lost'. The war in the West was a stalemate.

You say no officer will ever accept that he lost. Well the Japanese at Midway and the French at Trafalger (ever heard of THOSE?) would admit it, since it stared them in the face. THe Pakistani fleet was not destroyed ut successfully managed to achieve its pre-war objective (in the west at least.)


I am sorry idleguy (love the name by the way), but your knowleddge of Naval History and Strategy is nothing short of Pathetic. You suscribe to a Bollywood interpretation of history backed up by a shallow and selective interpretation of the facts at hand. Well no fear this is after all Wikipedia and you just need to browse around and learn.

cheers

The Hamood-ur-Rahman commission report was made public in Pakistan after they published it in the press in India. Is this freedom of press? a commission that originates from one country is not allowed for public knowledge until a neighbouring country gives out the information? The findings of the commission were held confidential even from top brass which reflects poorly on the information mechanism. the 30 year rule was just to hoodwink people because had it been so then it would have come to light only on 2004. however the copies were obtained by indian media in 1999 (25 years since the commission was completed in 1974-75) and once they made it public pakistan was bound to follow.
The world "negligible" was removed a couple of revisions back. I think you aren't reading the article. that was done even before u made the previous post.
Official pakistan sources of 1971 (read the newspaper archive in a public library if they store those) clearly stated that they lost more than just pns khyber and pns shahjahan(damaged). the naval website of pakistan conveniently ignores the losses and would gladly advertise the lone "kill" of INS khurki. Please read the report "Story of the Pakistan Navy", Naval HQ, Islamabad ,1991 that states in no uncertain terms how much the losses were. THE OFFICIAL VERSION. Pakistan officials are quite naive in ignoring its own official version assuming people forget the past and stick to what they say now.
I would like to see you stick to the point and tell me if pns muhafiz (minesweeper) just fizzled into thin air in the arabian sea if it was not sunk by INS Veer? Did you even know that 3 billion dollars worth of damage, most of the oil reserves and ammunition had been lost in and around Karachi port after the first series of attacks? and yet u call it a "a strategic victory for Pakistan"? May I ask how losing 7 warships (+couple of damages) is a strategic victory while inflicting 1 casuality (+1 damage)? All this just in the western side. If such is the thinking then no doubt the "strategy" worked fine for India in freeing Bangladesh. The objective of the Indian Navy was to inflict maximum casualities on the Karachi port and bottle it up. not "blockade", as there is a subtle difference between the two which translates to a lot in practice. The first was the operation trident which resulted in the sinking of Khyber and muhafiz and damage of shahjahah, and another merchant ship from US "Venus Challenger" ship carrying ammunitions went down during the operation. This was followed up by another partially successful operation called Operation Python during which PNS Dacca was damaged and a freighter and partrol boats were sunk. The Operation Triumph was the lone failure when pns hangor sunk ins khurkri and damaged another warship the INS Kirpan and not "Kipran" as u think. And by this time, the war nearing a close so it would have been a waste of resources to engage in further conflict in the west when the east had nearly fallen, that explains the reason why after the final operation no more naval attacks took place. I bet you have never heard of these operations yet continue to read the latest official line that omits all the failures.

The fact is Pakistan actually lost more primary warships in the western front than the eastern front. the eastern front with the exception of pns ghazi lost primarily coast guard boats, merchant navy vessels and gunboats (or converted fishing boats as u claim without giving me the proof). If it's of dubious claim and the loss cannot be corraborated or if the damage isn't serious enough(reclaimed/repaired vessel) then it doesn't merit an inclusion here. for instance PNS Zulfiquar was hit by friendly fire by PAF, but was later recovered and wouldn't really be classified as a kill.

You said "your knowleddge of Naval History and Strategy is nothing short of Pathetic". First Mr. Admiral I have to remind you that the naval defeats at midway and trafalgar and leyte gulf were clearly "battles" that naturally had only a victor and loser. I think you are confusing a battle with an operation. no where in ind-pak history has a naval "battle" taken place. You are unable to grasp the ocean of a difference between the words BATTLE and operation/attack and yet try to sound as if your knowledge of naval strategy and history is sound.
btw, I don't watch Bollywood movies or any regional indian movies for that matter on a regular basis. The song dance routine masala is for the masses. Even if I do watch any Indian movie, rest assured that they generally aren't the sunny deol or shahrukh or "patriotic" ones u are referring about.
Finally, if the original OFFICIAL casuality figures from Pakistan and India plus other neutral and pakistan sources are selective, by all means they will be used. because if i used primarily Indian sources then the figure will bloat up beyond recognition. remember that when u talk about neutrality. I'm trying to be as neutral as possible without distorting the truth. --Idleguy 19:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


First of all apologies on the "negligent' part.

Secondly the minesweeper was not a major surface vessel.

Thirdly, thanks for the clarification on the INS Kipans name.

Now you say that 7 major warships were sunk, and than you contradict yourself by saying the majority were gunboats.

Converted Trawler: the defination of a Gunboat.

Now a strategic victory and a tactical victory are different. You may be defeted on the battle field but may achieve whatever your objective was. Example in the Battle of Jutland the Brits lost more ships but the German fleet remained in port for the remainder of the war.

THe purpose of the Indian Navy was to blockade Karachi and cut off maritime communications. They failed in both. It was not to inflict as much damage on the PN on its own at least. THe damage had to have a purpose, to reduce the PN's fighting ability so as to achieve the objective.

THe Indian Navy fought well and can be proud of 71, but the fact is that both Navy's after their initial losses were not egar to fight.

I am not disputing the figures but you interpratation of them.

cheers

The figure 7 was wrong, i admit. It was actually 5 (2 destroyers, one minesweeper one submarine and a fully armed coast guard). other vessels were minor or not primary warships like gunboats smaller coast guard boats, merchant vessels and allied freighters - most notably from the US carrying ammunition. A minesweeper is still considered a major naval ship and according to the foremost authority on naval warfare, Jane's Defence it is one of the several "fighting ships". the total losses therefore would come to nearly 30 vessels, gunboats and minor vessels included.
The fact is by the time Pakistan Navy inflicted the first casuality on the Indian Navy, the war war just a couple of days away from being over and therefore there wasn't any strategic reason for the indian navy to deploy resources in the west. the objective of Indian navy, to put it simply, was to attack the Karachi harbour early in the war and thus cripple the Navy from trying to reach the east. this was achieved and Pakistan Navy had their hands full in protecting their headquarters, thus losing the plot. being eager to fight does not fetch results, being objective does.
Again the word is "bottled up" Karachi not "blockade". there is a lot of difference. the blockade was only on dhaka.
A gunboat is seldom a converted trawler. They are full fighting pint sized units by their own right. It could have been that in this particular war pakistan navy decided to convert fishing boats into gunboats as claimed by you, but unless I see proof I don't think that is a valid statement.
I'm not interpreting anything and have made some changes to have a more positive and neutral tone in the article, but some general consensus from various quarters have to be included. with limited resources the navy fought against overwhelming odds but that doesn't mean that they were able to achieve anything significant in the whole picture of the war. --Idleguy 14:47, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A neutral Wikipedian's comments (failed attempt to mediate)

IMO The phrase "largely overrun" should only be used if Pakistan Navy vessels were either destroyed or forced into retreat much more frequently than the Indian Navy vessels were (say, 70% or the battles). Otherwise, I would suggest a more neutral phrase like "the Navy struggled to keep the coast protected."

For now I have removed the sentence By the end of the war, "Pakistan Navy had lost half its Naval fleet" (Pakistan author Tariq Ali). AFAIK, in modern warfare, comparative losses are normally counted in tons of shipping, this being a reasonable manner of equating the economic and military effect of disparate styles and sizes of vessel. When or if comparisons (whether between the adversaries or between before and after) are done on that basis, I suggest vague statements from whomever and of whatever nationality do not belong here.

Please remember that this is an article about the Pakistan Navy not about the war. Some of what is being argued over does not belong on this page: it should go onto a separate article to do with the war. That includes at least the data on the Indian losses under 'Role in 1971 War', if not the losses for both sides (to avoid replication). Such an article is also the place for any detailed engagements during the war. If this war is the one covered by Bangladesh Liberation War then there should be a link here to it (as Pakistani Civil War?) and a naval section inserted in it.

Of the two pictures that seem to be contentious, I have included the one of PNS/M Ghazi. I see no reason for it not to be here but I have excluded the word 'proud' as sounding jingoistic and not at all verifiable. Until or unless there is textual mention of the Commandos, I see no reason for there to be a picture and have excluded it.

Now that a third person (me) has stepped in to help sort this mess out, I ask you BOTH to REFRAIN FROM VANDALISM and to respect my time. I don't claim to have the article perfect but will keep an eye out. I suggest that if you want to re-introduce any text that I have missed out, you place it here an let me look it over and include it or comment on it.

--Douglas 13:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Douglas before you accuse me of vandalism, please see other pages like Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 where this user has been criticized by others for reverting atleast a dozen times without any action being taken on his account. And every edition is a "cut and paste" operation from a set of sites like www.pakdef.info etc. Even the jingoistic descriptions of photos which u toned done (and i further wikified after modifying) were lifted word by word, error by error from many of these pakistan only sites. they are not only copyvio but blatant POV in text and images.
I have been reasonable so far with this POV vandalism (who uses sock puppets like Napoleon12 and other IP addresses) and the reason I had to remove a whole 2 paragraphs for 1965 war was that there were no human casualities. Moreover this paragraph is a repetition of a statement made in the history section. Again the paragraph is an exact redundant repetition from the wikipedia link on the 65 war.
Finally as you will know this user reverts to his favorite version no matter what any of us think or discuss here. He has waaay too much time on his hands that he does a blanket revert to the one where his version of propaganda no matter what other wikipedians have to say on the issue.
If you do really want to mediate then I suggest you look up the other wikilinks of various wars I've mentioned before and the complicated edit history and the many complaints made against him by various users including in the 3 revert rule policy etc. before trying to assume or presume anything. This user has made it complicated for anyone trying to get the big picture on what he is doing but a look at his edit history shows he has no reasoning and will act like a child to get his fav. version of history. --Idleguy 14:19, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Idleguy, one of the way I believe in mediating is to allow a fresh start and to NOT look backwards or sideways. It is not my intention to consider any other page's edits: just because something doesn't belong elsewhere doesn't mean it won't belong here (and quite frankly, I don't have time, anyway). I intend "allowing" (I do realise that it is not up to me to allow or disallow - I can only arbitrate if people let me) all users to have their say, without reference to past actions.
Asking people not to vandalise is not saying that they have vandalised. Keep you hair on!  :-) I do NOT claim to be an expert on this subject and I do not need to be. I have no views nor cares about the subject matter other than a desire to see a good encyclopedic topic (I do have some interest in military history generally and in sailing).
It appears to me so far that you resist my mediation attempt. At least you have explained your edits here, however. For some reason, my earlier search didn't turn up the 1965 war as an article. Since the text is there, all that was needed here is a small stub linking to it. Similarly, I feel the amount of text needed here for the Atlantique Incident is quite small, acting as a brief mention and link.
I've added a few more details and removed the repetitive section on the 1965 war since it's already mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no more info on that to expand nor does it deserve a seperate heading as there were no casualities on either side.
The reason why I mentioned that you look at the article edit history of not just this page but also the other wikilinks was that this person under various aliases has been involved in doing the same. other users have listed his IPs and sockpuppets like Napoleon12 to Vandalism in progress & 3RR as he indulges in blatant copyvio images and text.Idleguy 03:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see that you are resisting my attempts to make the page have a NPOV and wasting my time trying to mediate. I am beginning to understand someone's desire to simply revert your edits, even though there are a couple of useful sentences you have added. I'm backing off - I have better things to do. This page should serve as a useful pointer to admins about who is causing trouble here. --Douglas 10:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I simply don't understand how improving an article by reducing a redundant statement and adding the casualities in a naval incident has convinced you to convert this into a POV debate. Since nothing has been added or removed I think this is quite hasty without fullly knowing the facts or history. I assume that you have not fully read the other person's various other edits under different IPs who stubbornly refused to come to debate his views or back his claims with neutral evidence. Neither have you read that site from which this miscreant tries to "cut-copy-paste" the partisan version which he tried to thrust upon us (www.pakdef.info) making it sound like this was just a neutrality debate. This would also have been a copyvio problem. removing POV. --Idleguy 13:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Of copyvio images and POVs. And poor mediation.

I suggest user Douglas tries to read the references and also http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/october/military.htm (from Pak commander) to get a full picture of why this article is not POV. The user which Douglas loves to refer to has been temporarily blocked (though he might return again). Someone else has already listed the images and text he has uploaded as copyvio and so the images have to be removed. But Douglas would assume that I'm pushing my version of history and try to revert to copyvio text and images or put a simply POV without reading anything in the references section or on the internet. I asked why POV was inserted when all i did was improve the article(like i've done again), instead he fails to answer the question. I think pov statements aren't to be taken lightly when considerable research has been done. What happened was this: a vandal and copyvio user started pushing his POV across various india pak related articles. suddenly when his sources and neutrality and copyrights were questioned some others mistook it otherwise including Douglas. Previous debates were settled and the neutrality of articles are disputed only when the figures are sketchy. In this scenario there was little of that. I'll explain why:

  • The 1961 war involved nothing more than bombing of Dwarka port and no casualites save a "few cows" as someone put it jokingly.
  • The 71 war figures were taken (if anyone reads the full article) from mainly official sources from both sides. this was then correlated with neutral sources including indian and pakistan authors on the topic.
  • Other areas like "growing hegemony" is based on the article i'v ementioned in the top of this section by a Pak military person. The jist of it states that India has a 6:1 naval superiority and growing due to economic reasons.

PLEASE READ AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. But don't be hasty for anyone can add {pov}, but it takes considerable time in developing a fairly reasonable article.--Idleguy 13:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I see it may be necessary to point out Idleguy's erroneous statements on this page. He says "The user which Douglas loves to refer to..." as though I had references or dialogue with anyone other than himself. To make it clear, it is my impression that Idleguy deliberately obstructed mediation in settling POV. The page history shows clearly that during the time of my attempting to help sort out the dispute on this page, he reverted my edits and removed the NPOV dispute statement I inserted with a stub even though it was obvious that it was his editing I was declaring as POV. Idleguy loves to try blaming all this on someone else (who was not blameless in my opinion) but who had nothing to do with the problems he himself caused. As I suspect anyone else editing this page will discover, Idleguy seems to consider this page "his" and attempts to balance or even add constructively to it are likely to be blocked unless he is happy with the change. I do not know whether the page is currently NPOV or not: last time I checked, it was slanted at least as much toward India's POV as the Indian Navy article is. --Douglas 11:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Going by Douglas's statements the impression is that he either doesn't read the article or the edit history properly and comes to half baked conclusions, conveniently forgetting his own statements. In one of his previous reply he says "I am beginning to understand someone's desire to simply revert your edits,". This "someone" was whom I meant when I said "Douglas loves to refer". He was a constant problem across all articles related to India-Pakistan and since then was banned under the 3RR. Unfortunately he seems oblivious to that fact.
I don't consider this or any other page to be mine, for if it so, I would have put up copyright info. DUH! The problem was that the user I mentioned added copyvio text blatantly - and copyvio has no place in Wikipedia policy. Another example of Douglas' impatience shows in the fact that I haven't even edited this article in almost 3 weeks (and even those last few reverts of mine, as anyone would understand were to remove an external link - a forum that required a login); yet he continues to believe that I somehow oversee the development of this article according to my whim and fancy. I'm very much for a crisp article that does not compromise history and the underlying facts - all without any copyvio text.
Finally the issue of POV can be solved by the use of references as stated in official policy on NPOV. As one can easily see, the references on the war and the naval attacks in particular were gleaned entirely from Non-Indian sources (half were Pakistan authors) which puts little doubt on the neutrality or the accuracy of the facts. If anyone cannot take the time to read the references but simply wishes to tag it as POV, is simply wasting time trying to mediate or for that matter even understand the article.

[edit] Destroyers

The articles says ten and ten says none. Which is it? Jinian 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghazi issue

To anon. See the article PNS Ghazi which uses a reference from B.Harry (just hosted on Bharat Rakshak not written by them) that states that Indian ships were actively searching for Ghazi and not "bottled" as DefenceJournal (a Pakistani source) claims. This is backed up by another neutral source Orbat.com which states nowhere that she was "bottling" up the "entire IN western fleet" as you keep claiming. It merely states "she was deployed off Bombay to attack only Heavy ships or ships moving intercept Dwarka Task Force" and goes on to say "she tracked several ships moving in and out of Bombay, but did not attack as she was to attack only the heavy targets. Hardly the kind of bottling you'd normally associate with a Naval blockade!. Please try to use non-biased sources, when available, in the future to avoid these very sort of exaggerations. Tx --Idleguy 13:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


To Idleguy. The article used as a reference is written by Mr. B. Harry who is a known Indian origin contributor and can hardly be classified as a 'non partisan' source. So that source should be negated due to blind nationalistic bias introduced by the author. The submarine did attack an A/A frigate which came out of the harbor as is mentioned on the very source you provided. The blockade was directed towards the Indian Navy's western fleet and not towards any civilian shipping. Please know that this is an encyclopedia and the more verifiable information it has the better, even if it goes against your point of view. Thanks. Red aRRow

Something wrong with the way you read? Even if he is taken as an Indian the source still clearly says "the Indian Navy sent out 5 escorts to search an area of 5000 square miles in the southern approaches to Bombay and picked up several sonar contacts, which were attacked." and adds about the A/A frigate u mention "the Ghazi in reality caused no damage to the Indian Navy" vis a vis the claim that INS Brahmaputra was torpedoed. A claim discounted and abandoned even by PN after the war in the wake of the ship being paraded by the IN.
The second source orbat.com (neutral) too doesn't mention any "blockade" which you quote. Except that highly biased and jingoistic (quite naturally being a military publication) Defence Journal. As long as you keep basing your assumptions and facts on a POV source it's not likely to be accepted in an encyclopedia, especially when the Indian version on PNS Ghazi seemed to be one of a hunting down approach in the same war! There is a difference between quoting some source and a reliable source. Sites like Bharat Rakshak and Defence Journal are highly opinionated sources and are to be used with extreme caution and only when there seems to be no better alternative or when the writer of that particular article is a third party. For this purpose orbat.com a neutral source makes no mention of a "blockade" in the western port. A blockade no matter of merchant or naval is a serious enough one to be noted by independent historians and if you do have evidence of the same from a neutral source I would be glad to accept it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the official wikipedia policy on the same and you'll understand. Tx --Idleguy 16:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


To Idleguy. Judging from the discussions above and from your contributions, it isn't the first time you are blending in blind nationalism and propaganda into articles related to Pakistan. If some words such as 'blockade' are causing you discomfort go ahead and perform the minor edits. However blindly removing complete paragraphs of facts and historical evidence just because they do not conform to your personal versions of events or history will not help. Red aRRow

Don't worry, none of my edits are without a reliable source - the reason why they stand the test of time and are accepted by other non Indian/Pakistani editors. The same which cannot be said of yours or other Pakistani editors - and some Indians - who edit based on a "selective history" approach. I also infer from your failure to provide a neutral source for the 'blockade' - other than the blatantly biased DefenceJournals, PakDefs etc. it is but a confirmation of the statement I made. I don't have to conform to Urdu tales on history or propagandas by dictatorships, if that is what you intend to say. --Idleguy 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


To idleguy: I have removed the contentious words of 'blockade' and made other minor adjustments in order to reach a compromise. Hopefully the changes will be to the satisfaction of all parties. Red aRRow

OK. Seems fair enough. --Idleguy 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet

The fleet strength is not uptodate.

The Official website is provididing information on 1 Leander class frigate and it is used as training ship.

3 French Eridan Class Mine Hunter vessels is already listed no need to add it again and again.

From official website only 3 Jalalat class are in service

  • 4 Sabqat Class (Huangfeng Class) Fast Attack Crafts
  • 4 Hoku Class Inshore Missile Boats

These two were inducted in 1970's and must have been decommissioned. Chanakyathegreat 10:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


To Chanakyathegreat: 'Must have been decommissioned' isn't actually verifiable unless we can find a source. By the way why are you deleting the line which states PNS Ghazi was deployed against Indian Western Fleet at Bombay?? It doesn't seem to be a provocative or a biased statement. I'm confused. 12:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did the PNS Ghazi go down?

Says in the article on the PNS Ghazi that she went down in unexplained circumstances. Says in the Pakistan Navy article that she went down because of a mishap while laying mines. Methinks the two stories need to jive and they currently don't. Opinions? Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Indian government claims one of their ships sunk it. However, since their were involved in the war, its not a NPOV. The Pakistani government claims it was destroyed in an explosion while laying mines. A neutral source that I think is stated in the Navy article states there was no ships in the Bay of Bengal during the time the Indian government claimed to have sunk the ship. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not asking that we state one reason or the other. But we do state the same thing in both stories. Do check this reference - I think you'll find it neutral. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: For what it's worth , I think these Ghazi guys were ballsy as hell to even operate this close to a major enemy port. Let's do a good job with their article, shall we?
Well this article is a about the Pakistan Navy and not about the sub so it is better leave information on how it went down in the sub article. (It was a war...so they could have been under orders) --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Separate articles doesn't change the facts - And the facts seem to be that nobody knows how it went down. Then that's what needs to be in both articles.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)