Talk:Battle of Longewala

message: Brig. Chandpuri's book has removed Mj. Atma Ram's assertation that there was no ground battle. He also won a defamation case against the air force officer for ₹1, and therefore, the ground battle's legitimacy has been established in court.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/War-veterans-book-reiterates-doubts-over-Armys-role-in-Longewala-battle/articleshow/26545285.cms
Had there been no ground battle (in the form of a holding action which Chandpuri chose rather than escape, the Pakistani Strike force would have merely advanced to Rampur, and the outpost at Longewala would not have lost almost  all of its buildings .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.243.10 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground Battle at Longewala

message: The current article seems to be copied from , an issue of the Strategic Affairs magazine.
I do not think the sentence ..."In fact the entire offensive was so audacious that it bordered on the verge of absurdity" is NPOV...and besides this article still has a pro-Indian slant to it. (Saurabhb 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One of those lines was taken from a Pakistani army general recounting the misfortune in Longewala. Just because history sounds bad it doesn't obviously mean it's POV. Idleguy 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I took it from a source which i'm unable to trace, but i've commented it out and reworded it to make it more neutral in tone. Idleguy 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It still seems a copyvio 

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

message: Retired Maj. Gen. Atma Singh, who received the Vir Chakra for gallantry at Laungewala, told Hindustan Times that no ground battle was fought and the army had merely rehearsed it on a sand model after the ceasefire to cover up the incompetence of senior military commanders.  Sumanch (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one problem (sic!). Why would the Pakistan Govt. sack the Brigadier responsible for the attack? Did both the Indian and the Pakistani Army collude to hide the inefficiency of god knows which army? Ironically, the the falsity of Atma Singh's statements are made clear by one of the citations given in the article itself. http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=2689 . This will probably be a point to be noted. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well one reason could be a failure to advance in the face of little or no opposition (if this claim is true)? Or he could have been caught falsifying his after action report to cover up his own cowardice or incompetence (especially if he actually faced no opposition)?[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Of Longewala Controversy 

message: As i expected the controversy section has been deleted by nationalist indians 81.158.129.26 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Controversy section 

message: What does this mean?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read www.defencejournal.com. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrived in the shadow of the node 

message: in the box of losses it was supose to be 150 solders killed instead of 2
& even those 2 died did'nt die of Pakistan's hostile fire, they died of a "Friendly fire" in the form of a rotten fart otherwise no indian would have ever died in this battle.
99.228.200.225 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 99.228.200.225, 29 June 2010 

message: i got a photo of the original aircraft used in the attack kept in jaisalmer city museum . if you like to have that here please let me know on <email>.
:If you own the copyright to the photo then upload it at Wikimedia Commons. I will also reply via email.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo to add 

message: the article is heavily biased. only 18 pakistani tanks were destroyed and 8 damaged and all by the IAF.the indian army did nothing.moreover the last pakistani tank was destroyed on 8 december 1971 28 kms inside india! hav a look at an article given on the net.
THE BATTLE of Longewala is part of army folklore. This is a fairy tale of 100 odd soldiers and their steely resolve, which forced an entire Pakistani brigade, backed by an armoured regiment of 45 tanks, to retreat in the 1971 war. This fascinating story was also captured on celluloid in the film ‘Border’, directed by JP Dutta. The battle of Longewala has been told and retold in military journals and is held out as a shining example to students graduating from the military academies. The sheer valour displayed by Major Kuldeep Singh Chandpuri and his alpha team is just an unmatched feat.
 
But some war veterans have challenged this story after 37 years. Major General (retd), Atma Singh Hansara, told Hindustan Times in an interview, “I dispute the ground battle completely. It is mockery of army ethos. No ground battle was fought and the army had merely rehearsed it on a sand model after the ceasefire to cover up the incompetence of senior military commanders.”
 
Air marshal, MS Bawa, who was directly involved in the war, also agrees with Hansara. He says, “This is a challenge. There was no contact between the enemy and the army.” He further said that the Pakistani thrust was blunted entirely by air action alone.
 
This controversy made me go through some facts related to the battle. It is very hard for me to believe, as the story of Longewala has motivated several youngsters to join the forces. I tried to read the available journals, articles, magazines and accounts of war heroes to know the truth.
The Air Force War diary says that this turned out to be a clean battle, one of its kinds. This is the most decisive battle fought between Indian Air Force (IAF) and armour. Even Major General, RF Khambatta, GOC, 12 Infantry Division, lends credence to the Air Force’s claim. Pakistan General, Muqeem, in his book ‘Crisis of Leadership in Pakistan’, mentions that large number of vehicles, tanks and guns got bogged in sand. The enemy was the master of skies and destroyed 18 tanks and other vehicles at his leisure. The army documents related to war seems to nail the controversy. It only gives credit to Chanpuri’s men for ‘holding out’ a lonely post. The document says, “ At Longewala that day, IAF added a glorious new chapter.	 This was the straight battle between the Pakistan armour and IAF hunters. The bulk of Pak armoured regiment was destroyed by air action alone.”
Truth, it is said, is often the first casualty in the war. The controversy has raised several questions that need to be answered. If this is the truth, then why the army is keeping the lie still alive? Is the army taking more credit than it deserves? What incompetence military commanders are trying to hide? If former officers are correct, then what has propelled them to speak now? They should have protested before or even when the film Border was released?
The Indian army has been in news for wrong reasons, and it is time more facts were opened to put an end to this (de)famed battle. But let’s not make any conclusions unless we hear from both the forces. It is better not to conclude with half knowledge. This is something related to the dignified and respected Indian armed forces, and thus, it is in the interest of services that the truth about the Longewala battle be told to the citizens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.88.125 (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEAVILY BIASED INDIAN-MADE STORY 

message: An image used in this article, File:Longewala.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;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) 11:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Longewala.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:Longewala Tank.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;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) 11:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Longewala Tank.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Battle of longewala is a indelible story of gallantry of Indian A
This battle creates an Interest as in the Battle Longewala 120 Indian soldiers defended against 2500+ Pakistani soldiers aided with 65 tanks. In spite of the huge difference Indian army was able to defeat Pakistani Army.
Controversy:
This battle received heavy criticism from Pakistani scholars and army generals as it marks a heavy shame and raises a question on the bravery of Pakistan as a Nation.
Pakistan Army general claims Battle of longewala to be An Indian army folklore to criticize Pakistani army. This seems obvious that 120 soldiers can never withstand outnumbered enemy. They admit that Pakistani army was defeated due to weak military strategy and IAF involvement.Also The Indian army was at greater advantage deference position. Their was no ground fight ever done. Pakistani scholars often present interview of Atma Singh Hansara in the Hindustan Times (an Indian Daily newspaper) where he revealed:
"I dispute the ground battle completely. It is a mockery of army ethos.” Like Bawa, he too landed at Longewala by the evening of December 5 and he contests the Army’s claim that its men engaged the enemy with recoil less guns and medium machine guns. Is the army, then, guilty of cloaking the truth? Did 100-odd soldiers of the Indian Army put a brave resistance without suffering any losses at Longewala? If they had engaged the enemy — thus giving away their location — would they have survived to tell the tale?"
Analysis of The battle:
Indian scholars explains the controversy:
1. As documented IAF played the most important role in achieving triumph. Enemy outnumbered the ground battalion. Battalion HQ gave Mj.Kuldip singh the choice of staying put, and containing the attack as much as possible, or carrying out a tactical retreat of the company to Ramgarh, as reinforcements would not be available for at least six hours. Considering that Chandpuri's command had no transportation, and was facing a mobile enemy, he decided to maintain the defensive position of the post where his troops at least had the benefit of prepared defensive works, rather than conducting a withdrawal at night that was a far more riskier option. IAF was not able to assist in the night as IAF jets were not equipped with night vision cameras. Air force was able to reach the battle sight only and were delayed from conducting combat missions until dawn (after 6 hrs)
2. Mj. Kuldip singh and team decided to defend from a high sand dune which dominated the area that was largely intractable to vehicles. The post was surrounded by a barbed wire fence of three stands. The initial Pakistani attack stalled almost immediately when the infantry discovered the barbed wire which was unseen in the night, and interpreted it to signify a minefield.
3. Tanks were useless as they got stuck in the soft sand. The outnumbering Pakistani army was not able to move forward due to suspicion of mines and heavy counter attack from the defending Indian army. The Indian soldier were able to defend as they were defending from a far more advantageous location scattered around the post in bunkers,than as compared to crowd of outnumbered Pakistani soldiers attacking in the full moon night.
4. Six hours were wasted for Pakistani army due to the battle field circumstances. In the dawn Indian aircraft dramatically changed the course of battle towards low numbered Indian soldiers.
5. IAF played the significant role in changing the course of war with an aid of ground battalion defense strategy.IAF jets were easily able to destroy enemy tanks as they were still blocked in the wide spread deserted battle field. 2500+ soldier were unable to overcome in morning and they were forced to move backward due to IAF jets intervention.
6. Mj. Kulduip singh was awarded Maha Vir Chakra for implementing successful counter defense strategy. This award is second highest military decoration in India and is awarded for acts of conspicuous gallantry in the presence of the enemy, whether on land, at sea or in the air. This award shows it authenticity  of the circumstanced described in this battle.
7.Also there was no post available on official Hindustan Times sites and media library which mentions any such Atma Singh Hansara interview.
8. Also their is no description in official websites where IAF general have described the battle to be won only due to an efforts of IAF.However there are post at some unofficial sites were IAF general are claimed to criticized Indian army and the battle to be won with only IAF efforts. But their is no official public interview recorded were IAF chief have criticized Indian army.  Aftre all Indian army, Nay and Air force work as a team headed by Indian President. And in the battle of Longewala contribution by both Army, and air force is indelible and significant.  
9.The British media significantly exploited the defence of Longewala. James Hatter compared the Battle of Longewala as to Battle of Thermopylae in his article 'TAKING ON THE ENEMY AT LONGEWALA' describing it as the deciding moment of the 1971 war.[16] Similarly, Field Marshal R.M. Carver, the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, visited Longewala a few weeks after the war to learn the details of the battle from Major Chandpuri.
Critics and explanation are always available for epic tale of Triumphs.
No proof can change individual perspective, unless we realizes others perception.
Indian army is credited for holding the enemy for 6hrs, by adopting strong counter defense strategy, till IAF intervention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John2find (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Longewala Controversy and Analysis 

message: Recently Lt Col Mohammed Khursheed Hussain's name was added to commanders and leaders of the Indian belligerents section. Anyone can help by providing reference to it and if anyone notices such unreferenced content please do provide references to keep this article away from controversies. Shriram (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of the name: Lt Col Mohammed Khursheed Hussain

message: The info box contains a link to Ramgarh, Sikar district which is 594 km away Map I suspect from context that the Ramgarh involved was "Ramgarh, Rajasthan 345022, India" which is only 43 km away and on the road that runs from Jaisalmer to Longewala Map Kiore (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Ramgarh Wikilinked? 

message: The commentaries added to result parameters seems less wanted, I have removed this source and the backed information per WP:REDFLAG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Curious claims, as if there was no ground battle why did not the pakistan army just drive throw longewala at night ? without any resistence ? and the mere statments saying a afraid chandpuri was hiding in bunker and was happy to see a sardar is also kind of de-meaning and makes no sense. what would be expected that chandpuri was roaming on open ground with national flag (like a movie! ? ) during a ongoing war ! ? 09:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentaries on result parameters 

message: Hello guys! i'm new on wikipedia so i don't know much about it, i find few mistakes on Battle of Longewala , the major one is the casuilty2 (pakistan)  section, there it is mentioned "20 soldiers killed[citation needed]" . it is not 20 but 200 as earlier mentioned on the article :) and for citiation here are some refrences you guys can mentioned there - 200 soldiers killedHttp://topyaps.com/8-things-know-battle-longewala 8 Things You Should Know About The Battle Of LongewalaHttp://archive.org/stream/RegimentsOfIndianArmy/collection_djvu.txt
kindly update it!
thank you :) KnightWarrior25 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: User is currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astral Prince. Winner 42  Talk to me!  15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check casuilty section @ [[Battle of Longewala]] 

message: pls. add this also, ( Major Chandpuri replied to major atma singh 
Brigadier Chandpuri comments on book
Brigadier Kuldip Singh Chandpuri, acclaimed hero of Longewala, said he didn't want any certificate from Atma Singh "who himself was major at that time". "Ask him who held the enemy the entire night. He can write anything now when all the defence officers of that time are no more. Even the-then air chief marshal PC Lal in his book had praised the efforts of 23 Punjab under my command."
-> source   — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: User is currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astral Prince. The sources cited are non-reliable. And no one in the third source  it tells about the death of 200 Pakistanis. Faizan (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about an Indian site, I am talking about a "non-reliable source". Sources need to be reliable, peer WP:RS. Do you see the "citation needed" tag in front of the 20 soldiers killed? Only reliable sources can be used. Faizan (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

text: OK, let me find a reliable source, regarding casualties. Faizan (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

text: OK, I have added it with reliable sources. Faizan (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy! 

message: " The Indian army victory on the ground was however criticized by Indian generals claiming that there was no ground battle[2][3][4] " - This should be deleted from the infobox, as irreletave issues must be deleted from the infobox, instead Controversy  Section should be added in the Battle of Longewala with full info, like earlier it was mentioned in the article. the below lines with refrences should be added in the article under the controversy section
- In 2008, there was some controversy surrounding the role of the army and the air force in the battle. Maj-Gen Atma Singh (who was awarded Vir Chakra for his actions during the battle), Air Marshal Mohinder Singh Bawa and eight others claimed that there was no ground battle fought at Longewala and the Indian air power was responsible for Pakistan's defeat. Kuldip Singh Chandpuri sued the air force officers disputing the official version of the battle for one rupee, and stated that the limelight given to him had caused them "heartburn". Major Atma Singh in his new book has alleged that the army's version of the battle is built on "exaggerated claims" when it had little to do with crushing Pakistani forces.
Atma Singh, then a major, has credited the Indian Air Force for saving the day for the country. Brigadier Chandpuri comments on book - 
Brigadier Kuldip Singh Chandpuri, acclaimed hero of Longewala, said he didn't want any certificate from Atma Singh "who himself was major at that time". "Ask him who held the enemy the entire night. He can write anything now when all the defence officers of that time are no more. Even the-then air chief marshal PC Lal in his book had praised the efforts of 23 Punjab under my command."
:Why? The claims of the generals have gathered censure, and they said that "there was no ground battle", this means that Pakistanis were killed in air strikes. These claims are reported by reliable sources. KnightWarrior25 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See, we have many reliable sources regarding the controversial claims of Indian generals which criticized the fairy tales of ground battle. You should refer to the reliable sources noticeboard if you think they are not? I am not biased in favour of Pakistan or India, but as the reliable sources support 200 Pakistanis killed , I put it there. As the reliable sources also tell about Indian general's claims, they should get their place in relevant articles. KnightWarrior25 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy  Section should be added in the [[Battle of Longewala]] 

message: I have added a "Disagreement" subheading to record the conflict in the extent to which either respective branch of the armed forces deserved credit for the battle. To document it as it occurredBodha2 (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement section added 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Longewala. 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/20141022072452/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne150308the_truth.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne150308the_truth.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022072452/http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne150308the_truth.asp to http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne150308the_truth.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Different between 2 April 2020 and 6 December 2021 is mostly cosmetic changes to the infobox (space padding), except for the  addition. If there is some issue with a particular edit from back then I suggest the correcting edit is made to the current version of the article, instead of reverting 18+ months of other changes. FDW777 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are not reverting to April 2020 

message: I am opening this section in order to facilitate a discussion over your infobox image change. Per the note on your talk page, kindly observe WP:BRD and confine your actions to just taking part in the discussion here and explaining your rationale for why the change is warranted. In particular, I wish to see no more reverts happening from your side on this issue. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image change in the infobox 

message: 1971 nuclear power 27.107.120.170 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  mission majnu 

message: Please add "See also" section with entry
* India-Pakistan battles 
119.74.238.54 (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done Shadow311 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023