Talk:Battle of Longewala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ground Battle at Longewala[edit]

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)[reply]

It still seems a copyvio[edit]

The current article seems to be copied from [1], 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

yes, but that quote should have been attributed to the Pakistani general..otherwise it looks as if the writer has been airing his own personal point of view....if the name of that Pakistani general is mentioned than I have no problem with including it..otherwise it is POV...(Saurabhb 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanx (Saurabhb 21:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)[reply]

Battle Of Longewala Controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)]][reply]

Deletion of Controversy section[edit]

As i expected the controversy section has been deleted by nationalist indians 81.158.129.26 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arrived in the shadow of the node[edit]

What does this mean?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Photographic reconnaissance photo" WTF does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.4.12 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual accounts of 1971 Indo-Pakistan War bear testimony to the fact that no ground battle had taken place in Longnewala area of Thar Desert between India and Pakistan. As a matter of fact, there were no noteworthy regular troops in this sector on both sides. On Indian side, save for a few regular troops, the sector was mainly held by Border Security units. On Pakistani side, the area was primarily held by para-military troops scantily deployed on distant border outposts. The story of the battle given herein is one of many such tales fabricated by Indian Army for getting war medals etcetera. It reminds me that an Indian soldier had been awarded with the highest military award posthumously in the aftermath of Kargil conflit in 1999. Later it revealed that the soldier had not yet died and that he had rather deserted from the battlefield out of sheer cowardice. The Battle of Longanewala is no different than the said episode. Wikipedia must be fair enough and careful enough while publishing such "tactical tales". It is a matter of credibility for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.4.87 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read www.defencejournal.com. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The controversy needs to be lister to make readers be aware that there is the possibility of a fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.61.80 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 99.228.200.225, 29 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} 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) so please change that[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Article states 2 loses. SpigotMap 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

photo to add[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)[reply]

HEAVILY BIASED INDIAN-MADE STORY[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Longewala.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

File:Longewala Tank.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Battle of Longewala Controversy and Analysis[edit]

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)[reply]


good analysis first thing the case of atma singh look man, its obvious every soldier dont follow the motto of "NATION FIRST" many of the colleagues of kuldip singh will spread all this that we lost and blah-blah-blah but reality we won battle at the post ofcourse with "MAJOR HELP FROM PAKISTAN LACK OF INTELLIGENCE" they assumed that india has large forces at its disposal and hence never pressed on this is tactical mistakes but yeah even considering that holdin the post was a brave decision.122.161.78.118 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of the name: Lt Col Mohammed Khursheed Hussain[edit]

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)[reply]

Wrong Ramgarh Wikilinked?[edit]

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)[reply]

Commentaries on result parameters[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

Check casuilty section @ Battle of Longewala[edit]

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 killed[1][2] kindly update it! thank you :) KnightWarrior25 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User is currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astral Prince. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey dude, i created my ID because i find few major mistakes on Battle of Longewala . and this is my single Wikipedia account! you can check my location, my ip adress of my pc, or anything which can help you in your investigation. thats it! thanks for your kind attention! thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Http://topyaps.com/8-things-know-battle-longewala 8 Things You Should Know About The Battle Of Longewala
  2. ^ Http://archive.org/stream/RegimentsOfIndianArmy/collection_djvu.txt

controversy![edit]

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 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Faizan (talk)

will provide more sources later, but how can you write 20 soldiers in the casuilty2 section, whole worlds knows about 200 pakistani soldiers killed, and by your point no in the third party tells about only 20 pak soldier died See aftermath @ Battle of Longewala. there also mentioned about 200, and earlier in infobox too it was mentioned 200, and Topays is not an Indian site, [2] and see you are the one who erased 200 and writed 20 there.

and about sockpuppet investigation, do investigate more and check my location, my pc ip adress anything you guys want to check which can help you in your investigation. this is my first and single wikipedia account which i created few days ago just because i saw few mistakes on the infobox of the longewala article 

KnightWarrior25 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]


Faizan (talk) look what i am telling is that earlier also there was written 200 Soldier killed with " Citiation needed " , i'm not an well experienced editor so i can't give you the web link of the edit difference of who erased that 200 and writed 20, you seems to be an experienced editor, and you have many rights on wikipedia so use that for the right purpose, see the edit history of Battle of Longewala , you will see that earlier too it was written 200 there but someone has erased that in this month ( see edit history of Battle of Longewala. I have read the article Battle of Longewala and there were 200 pakistani soldier killed mentioned there from the starting. from this link of topays [3], you will believe me that earlier too it was mentioned 200 pakistani soldiers killed there, and let the other experienced editor to come here, they will tell you there was 200 pakistani soldiers killed. if you still dont belive me then,

Read the Aftermath section by yourself - " The battle of Longewala saw heavy Pakistani losses and low Indian casualties. Since the Indians were able to use the defenders' advantage, they managed to inflict heavy losses on the Pakistanis. Indian casualties in the battle were two soldiers along with one of their jeep mounted recoil-less rifles knocked out. Pakistani losses were 200 soldiers killed.[citation needed] The Pakistanis also suffered the loss of 34 tanks destroyed or abandoned, and lost 500 additional vehicles.[7] " another prrof - this is the refrence i'm mentioning [4] so you can know that earlier also there were 200 mentioned with "citiation needed" and someone in recent have erased that and writed 20 and probably no one has paid attention there! 116.203.73.107 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

sorry i edited without logging in, yeah sure, find that KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Faizan (talk) read this refrence [5] Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 . and see ealier too in wikipedia there was 200 pakistani soldiers killed mentioned KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added it with reliable sources. Faizan (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Faizan (talk) read page no.96[6] it's beyond my mind that why you writed 'In air strikes' with 200 soldiers killed, when there is nothing written in the reference about that, it was the 120 Indian Soldiers who defended the longewala post throughout the night and air force has come in the morning. As per the reference, I'm removing ' In air strike ' word from the info box.


Faizan (talk) the controversy claims cannot be added to support in air strikes word , this word is changing the entire history, major kuldeep singh chandpuri has replied to major atma singh , so the controversy section should be added in the article and not in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "New book claims to nail Longewala 'lies'". 2013-11-27.
  2. ^ "Battle of Longewala".
  3. ^ "The Battle of Longewala, 8 Things You Should Know About It". 2013-11-12.
  4. ^ "R/Wikipedia - the Battle of Longewala - casualties 2 Indian soldiers, Pakistani losses include 200 soldiers killed, 22 tanks destroyed and 100 additional vehicles lost".
  5. ^ http://www.comicbooklibrary.org/articles/battle_of_longewala
  6. ^ (Retd), Col J. Francis (2013-08-30). Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947. ISBN 9789382652175.

Controversy Section should be added in the Battle of Longewala[edit]

The user KnightWarrior25 has been blocked indefinitely for "account used only for edit-warring and POV-pushing". Faizan (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

" 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.[1] 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".[2][3] 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."[4]

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)[reply]

And the major who fought that battle already had replied to major atma singh who started this controversy, KnightWarrior25 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Faizan (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look what I am telling is that, the controversial section should be separately added to the article, Because Major Chandpuri Himself has replied to the controversy started by Major Atma Singh, and the reference [5] does not support the word " In Air strikes" , and when you are adding the controversy section, you should have depict claims from both sides, as major kuldeep Singh chandpuri has already replied to the atma Singh who started the controversy! the Airforce has arrived in the morning, I there was no ground battle fought , the Pakistanis would have easily captured the longewala! see upside what I have writed is that Major Kuldeep Singh chandpuri has already replied KnightWarrior25 (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


this was all about the controversy! 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.[6] 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".[7][8] 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."[9] KnightWarrior25 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]





WP:DRR/3O Faizan (talk)

Your point of view is totally biased. How can you write 200 Pakistani soldiers killed in Air strike, when the Air force has arrived in the morning, it was the Indian Army who defended the longewala post throughout the night, and not only defended but those 120 brave soldiers defeated 2,000+ pakistani soldiers backed with there patton brigade, and with the help of the air force ( Airforce was arrived at morning ) they were able to completely rout the aggressors. Read page no.96 - [10] This reference doesn't support your word " In Air Strike ". Even India lost 2 soldiers in the battle but able to completely wiped out pakistani forces from the longewala sector.

and once do visit this web link - [11] "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" once visit it and see how earlier Battle of Longewala Article was on Wikipedia and this also supports my edit! Have a look on the info box there is written 200 Soldiers killed with Citation Needed " ( Reference problem is now solved ). Point to be noted here is that after Decisive Indian Victory there is nothing written about controversy as the controversy section is included in the Aftermath. Look at the aftermath, At the last para, The Controversy part is mentioned - " 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.[12] 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".[13][14] " And I want to add few more lines about Major Kuldeep Singh (For his part, the Indian company commander Major (later Brigadier) Kuldip Singh Chandpuri was decorated with India's second highest gallantry award, the Maha Vir Chakra. Several other awards were earned by members of the defending company, and the battalion's commander. On the other hand, the Pakistani divisional commander was dismissed from service. 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[15] 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.[16] ) replied to the Major Atma's New Book in which 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."[17]

That's all I want to say and now don't revert my edit because i have provided you all, and the facts are in front of you! I'm just Removing that controversial part from the info box and writing full in the last para of aftermath! - [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightWarrior25 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Vijay Mohan (20 July 2007). "Brigadier sues Air-Marshal, Maj-Gen for disputing history Seeks damages of just Rs 1". The Tribune. Chandigarh. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  2. ^ "Longewala battle hero files defamation suit". India Today. 23 July 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  3. ^ "War veteran's book reiterates doubts over Army's role in Longewala battle | Chandigarh News - Times of India".
  4. ^ "New book claims to nail Longewala 'lies'". 2013-11-27.
  5. ^ (Retd), Col J. Francis (2013-08-30). Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947. ISBN 9789382652175.
  6. ^ Vijay Mohan (20 July 2007). "Brigadier sues Air-Marshal, Maj-Gen for disputing history Seeks damages of just Rs 1". The Tribune. Chandigarh. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  7. ^ "Longewala battle hero files defamation suit". India Today. 23 July 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  8. ^ "War veteran's book reiterates doubts over Army's role in Longewala battle | Chandigarh News - Times of India".
  9. ^ "New book claims to nail Longewala 'lies'". 2013-11-27.
  10. ^ (Retd), Col J. Francis (2013-08-30). Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947. ISBN 9789382652175.
  11. ^ Http://www.comicbooklibrary.org/articles/battle_of_longewala
  12. ^ Vijay Mohan (20 July 2007). "Brigadier sues Air-Marshal, Maj-Gen for disputing history Seeks damages of just Rs 1". The Tribune. Chandigarh. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  13. ^ "Longewala battle hero files defamation suit". India Today. 23 July 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2012.
  14. ^ "War veteran's book reiterates doubts over Army's role in Longewala battle | Chandigarh News - Times of India".
  15. ^ "The Tribune - Windows - Featured story".
  16. ^ "The Tribune - Windows - Featured story".
  17. ^ Http://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/new-book-claims-to-nail-longewala-lies/article1-1156480.aspx
  18. ^ Http://www.comicbooklibrary.org/articles/battle_of_longewala
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disagreement section added[edit]

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).[reply]

Citation[edit]

I am extending the page range for Short Stories from the History of the Indian Army Since August 1947 from 93 to 93-96, as this is required to support all the claims. If you wish to split this to separate cites,I have no objection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, sir you are not getting it, The IAF has arrived at morning and they destroyed 26 Tanks, Armoured vehicles, But it was the army who fought with the enemy army the entire night, as written in the source, It's Indian army who killed 200 Pakistani soldiers , and they also lost 2 soldiers. Therefore the word 'in air strikes should be removed'115.245.135.23 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is covered to some extent in the "controversy" section. It is certainly true that the same source attributes a number of tank casualties to the army. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The controversy statements should be removed from the infobox and from the first paragraph, as it already broadly written in the aftermath 115.245.135.23 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a point here to be discussed. Can we let other editors express their opinions? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]


Sure sir, open the RFC @Rich Farmbrough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.245.135.23 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rich Farmbrough sir, you have not removed the Word 'In Air strikes' .

see Battle of Longewala The battle was fought by Indian Army at longewala sector where 120 Soldiers from Indian Army defended there post entire night even when they were heavily outnumbered (2,800 Pakistani soldiers with a full Patton brigade), the air force was arrived at Morning and they credited with destroying as many as 26 Enemy Tank and 100 of armoured personnel carrier and light vehicles while the Indian Soldiers killed about 200 Pakistani soldier with losing only 2 Soldiers oof it's own and few camels.[2] - it is written The military historians have recorded that in this battle, the proportion of casualty suffered by tanks and infantry was the highest after the World War II. Pakistan has lost more than 200 men, 36 tanks and large number of other vehicles: Whereas Indian army loss was two men, an anti-tank gun and a few camels.

hence I will request you to write More than 200 Soldier Killed and removed In air strike word, on the casualty 2 section 115.245.135.23 (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No RFC is required. Your argument is very clear. I will look again at this discussion tomorrow, there is no hurry. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]


Sir Rich Farmbrough 

   Thank you very much!

and sir The controversy statements should be removed from the infobox as it is written with decisive indian victory and from the first paragraph, as it already broadly explained in the aftermath 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.[12] 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".[13][14]

as Major Kuldeep Singh ((For his part, the Indian company commander Major (later Brigadier) Kuldip Singh Chandpuri was decorated with India's second highest gallantry award)) has already cleared this controversy so sir removed those words (◾The Indian army victory on the ground was however criticized by Indian generals claiming that there was no ground battle[2][3][4]) from the infobox as it is mentioned in the aftermath section. 115.245.135.23 (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "(By air strike)" from the infobox, since no-one has argues that it be kept, and it seems contrary to the accepted narrative which is that at least 1/3 of the tanks were destroyed during the night.
I am a little disconcerted to find that two other editors have removed additional material while this discussion was open, albeit one has expanded the coverage in the lead.
  • 1. User:Shrikanthv removed the entire controversy section
  • User:Rueben lys
    • 2. removed some commentary in the infobox (noting the existence of the section removed a few hours earlier)
    • 3. expanded the coverage in the lead
I am going to assume that there is no dispute about the infobox, since it is not the place to discuss or promote either side of of the controversy. If there were significant disputes that affected data properly belonging in the infobox, we might have a problem, but there is no such dispute that I am aware.
I do think that the controversy is significant, and deserves a section. These are high-ranking, if retired, military officers who have made public controversial views, and a similar ranking officer who has repudiated it. There is no shortage of reasonably reliable sources.
Conversely I don't beleive that more than a sentence at most is needed in the lead.
I therefore propose
  1. To restore the section on the controversy, possibly adding some of the wording from the lead.
  2. To cut the mention in the lead to a short sentence "In 2008 there was a controversy over the extent of the army's role."
Please let me know what you think.
I will, of course, allow some time (>12 hours) for consensus to form.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Richard. I think this is investing more into the fringe than the article in itself. The way I see it, the Indian Airforce wants all the credit for stopping armour, and the Indian Army wants all the credit for stopping armour. Somewhere in the middle it is two immature people throwing childish tantrums and trying to hog limelight. That there was a battle of Longelwala and it was significant both as a battle, and as a key point in the western sector of the 1971 war, and that it is recognised as such by both the countries involved, I think, is adequate. Anything more is just pandering to attention-grabbing mass media drumbeats, much like Tim Hunt epsode. I think, in fact, for wikipedia and encyclopaedia purposes, the controversy should not be included at all, it has no encyclopaedic value and does nothing to improve the article. If at all, just a mention that it is an acrimonious point between IAF and Indian Army personnel of the time is already giving too many bytes. There is whole lot that can be done to explain tactical plannings, failures, luck etc etc of the battle. Who actually shouted Tally Ho is probably immaterial. I wrote in this artile almost seven years ago, and began writing on the planning behind the Pakistani strike, which I think improved the article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, the controversy is no controversy at all. It really is two boys having a lad's fight over who gets the girl, in a manner of speaking. (The girl being the credits for winning the battle single handedly).rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through the immediate history, I am more than inclined to agree with the editor who removed the disagreement section. It is very much a fringe and has absolutely no relevance to the article about the battle itself, as explained above about getting the girl.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography does have some importance. It also documents the extent of the rivalry between the services. We want to avoid WP:UNDUE of course, perhaps this would be better in the "aftermath" section than the lead. Certainly it would be good if there were some scholarly reactions rather than only press coverage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

https://www.timesofns.com/2021/03/Longewala-post-jaisalmer.html== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not reverting to April 2020[edit]

Different between 2 April 2020 and 6 December 2021 is mostly cosmetic changes to the infobox (space padding), except for the 200 soldiers killed 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)[reply]

Image change in the infobox[edit]

@Keshava96: 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)[reply]

mission majnu[edit]

1971 nuclear power 27.107.120.170 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Longewala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll write a review for this within the next few days. Then we can see how close it is to the good article criteria and what changes it might need to become a GA.

Smahwk, I've reviewed the article's uses of sourcing, and it falls far below what is expected of a good article. I found several places where the article misrepresents what the source is saying, acting like the source says things that it doesn't. You should be able to go to any sentence in the article, and the next in-line citation should be able to verify that sentence. There are also points where it looks like the article is copying the wording used by the source, which is plagiarism. This can't be considered a good article until the citations are completely cleaned up and redone, and there shouldn't be any places where the wording of the article seems to have been copied directly. There are also other issues with the text that I didn't get to: it editorializes a lot by saying that things are good or bad, it uses different language to refer to the army of Pakistan (always "Pakistani forces" or "Pakistani troops") and the army of India (which is sometimes just "the Indians"), and many of the items in the infobox aren't sourced or mentioned in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback ,I want to say that the part of the article you are referring to was written before Singh published his book and is therefore not a case of close paraphrasing.It is possible however that a major contributor to the article (not me) could have copied from Ludra (2001).Also ,The Times of India is simply giving an account of what happened in the battle.Zameer Uddin Shah was a senior Indian Army General who was serving with an artillery unit which was on standby a few miles away from Longewala when the battle took place.That article is less of an opinion piece and more like an account of how he recalls the battle and the days leading up to it.Bharat Kumar is an Indian Air Force officer who wrote a book analyzing the role of his service branch in the Battle of Longewala .

Smahwk (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: the text similar to Singh (2022) was added by this edit in 2007, and then you found the citation and added it. This either means that the person who added it stole it from something else previously written by Singh, or that Singh stole it. Either way, it's the job of the nominator to make sure that each part of the article is good, even the parts that they didn't right. I know I've been stumped in a few of my nominations by parts I didn't write and thought were good. A lot of the sources here are out of place, and every part of this article is going to need some fixing.
For the other sources, we don't trust Times of India to be reliable for many things, so it shouldn't be used here. And any sources that are personal accounts should be limited; anything more than a basic fact should be attributed in text so we know that it's the author's personal experience and not something that an expert wrote. I think the best option at this point is to close the review so the article can be reworked, and then you'd be able to nominate it again whenever you think it's ready. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the personal accounts cited in the article do not mention anything extraordinary.
I will be try to improve the article, can you review it when I renominate it? Smahwk (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, renominate it whenever the problems are resolved. If you want more perspectives on the article, WikiProject Military History is one of the most active WikiProjects, and there are a lot of editors there with more expertise in this area. I'll close the review now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well-written
Verifiable with no original research
  • "The 1971 Battle of Longewala: A night of confusion, Sam Manekshaw’s order, Pakistan’s folly" is an opinion piece. Opinions here should not be taken as facts. If the article uses any of the opinions here, it should make it clear that they are just the opinions of Zameer Uddin Shah.
  • globalsecurity.org is unreliable. Both of the places where it's used should be replaced with a better source.
  • What makes Kumar (2020) a reliable source? Is Natraj Publishers a well-established academic publisher? Is Bharat Kumar an expert on Indian or Pakistani military history?
  • The Times of India is unreliable for political content.
  • What is Imprint?
  • This isn't relevant to the GA criteria and it won't affect the review, but I suggest cleaning up some of the citations. Some of them are missing information like the author, the publisher, and the date of publication.

Spot checks to make sure the article accurately summarizes the sources without plagiarizing them:

  • Singh (2022):
    • The article says Immediately after PAF strikes on Indian airfields on 3 December, Chandpuri dispatched a 20-man-strong patrol under Second Lieutenant Dharam Veer. This is very close to the source, which says Immediately after the Pak Pre-emptive attacks on 3 Dec, Chandpuri dispatched a 20-man strong patrol under Lieutenant Dharam Veer. Close paraphrasing should be avoided, as it's not significantly different than just copying and pasting the text from the source.
    • This source doesn't say anything about Boundary Pillar 638.
    • This source lists several reasons the assault was halted beside moonlight and enemy fire, like fears of a minefield and the light of the tanks. They should probably be added, because right now it looks like this source is also talking about the moonlight and mortar fire (even though it isn't).
    • This source doesn't say anything about Matra T-10 rockets, 30 mm cannons, or 12.7 mm anti-aircraft guns. It looks like it only supports "turkey shoot" even though it's the citation for all of that text.
  • Ludra (2001)
    • Indian battle plans called for a strike by the 12th Indian Division across the border towards Islamgarh through Sarkari Tala, subsequently advancing through Baghla to secure Rahim Yar Khan. is very similar to The Indian plan in this region envisaged a strike across the international border towards Islamgarh, through Sarkari Tala. After securing Islamgarh the plan was to advance through Baghla and secure Rahim Yar Khan.
    • Why do both the article and the source use the word "envisaged"? Is the article stealing words from the source?
  • Sharma (1990)
    • This source doesn't say anything about a Jonga-mounted 106 mm M40 recoilless rifle.
    • This source does not mention the fears of a minefield and the light of the tanks. Why is this source attached to its paragraph?
    • It doesn't say anything about 36 destroyed tanks.
Broad in its coverage
Neutral
Stable
Illustrated
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2023[edit]

Please add "See also" section with entry

119.74.238.54 (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Shadow311 (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Longewala&oldid=1219230428"