Talk:Alastair Lamb

609:

that subject. That being so, even the facts already known may appear to be new if they are reinterpreted and a new relationship is established among them. Unfortunately, however, the new facts brought to light by the author only add to the old historical facts about the McMahon Line and are joined to one another in such a way that the conclusions likely to be reached by a reader cannot be different, except superficially, from the conclusions which have already been emphatically stated in a large number of studies on the subject and which tend to support India’s official position on the McMahon Line......

1859: 605:

McMahon Line, one would be thoroughly impressed by Professor Mehra’s book........... Thus, it must be said to the credit of the author that his book reflects the rare qualities of a painstaking scholar, and he must be complimented on his success in making a kind of mini version of the archival material on the subject readily available to the reader. Perhaps no scholar working on the same subject in future would find any significant document omitted from the volume under review.............

482:

already been emphatically stated in a large number of studies on the subject and which tend to support India’s official position on the McMahon Line...The merit of the book, according to the author, consists in the fact that it provides a proper historical framework for an analysis of the evolution of India’s north-eastern frontier. But he claims to provide only a framework and expects each individual reader to make his own analysis and reach his own conclusions.

324: 303: 334: 71: 53: 22: 1769:, is quite directly relevant to the issue in question. Parshotam Mehra states that it was a straightforward barter deal. If China gave up suzerainty over Hunza, the British would cede half of Aksai Chin to China. Fisher et al. say the same. Van Eekelen also recognises the connection between the two. If the Chinese already possessed a claim to Aksai Chin, such barter wouldn't have made sense. 277: 175: 141: 161: 253: 185: 1000:

them. Hugh Tinker already covers that Indian authors are upset by Alastair Lamb (his book is banned in "democratic" India). After Tinker's review there's no need to list each and every one of those authors and their distressed statements. All three are known for nationalist biases and their criticisms are both content and value free. Reception should cover

1426:. You can argue that this would be inappropriate; so lets tone it down; we can say he is pro-Pakistani in relation to his academic approach to Kashmir; toning it down more; Alaistar Lamb is considered pro-pakistani by Indian sources. Since the article says a lot about Kashmir and his work on Kashmir, it is only apt that this is mentioned in the lead. ( 1146:.Also, it doesn’t matter if the book is available on the Pakistani OUP website. A book either has or has not been published by the Oxford University Press. That particular book has also been academically reviewed in dozens of academic journals, so one edition being self-published isn’t a factor in reliability; just use the academic reviews. — 1366:) omits the Australia/New Zealand OUP branch despite it being mentioned at the top.Given that it was also republished by OUP Australia/NZ branch, and that OUP branches aren’t separate publishers from the OUP, I don’t think there’s really a need for an RSN thread on the question of being self-published. You can still go ahead with it though. — 783: 1384: 81: 617:

the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity. A person interested in historical facts just for their own sake would no doubt find the book extremely useful, but one who has even the least interest in the meaning and significance of those facts would find in it more bulk than substance.

635:

The criticism is actually a bit mixed. The reviewer did not like Mehra's writing of a blunt historical narrative; (despite the claims of the author that they were precisely doing that) and wished Mehra had not stayed away from commenting on the disputes that derived thereof. Kumar believes that since

616:

In view of the remarks made earlier, however, it is difficult to resist the impression that by leaving it to the reader to form his own judgement, the author has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce

612:

Both Professor Mehra and his publishers consider the book to be important on the basis of the claim that none of the studies on the subject published since the Sino-Indian military confrontation of 1962 has been satisfactory. The author also emphasizes that his book should be treated as a work on the

604:

It would not be unreasonable for a lay reader like this reviewer to expect that Professor Mehra’s book,.....,would say something about the controversial issues posed by these scholars (Lamb, Karunakar)..........If one is interested only in fresh and new information on the historical background of the

481:

Unfortunately, however, the new facts brought to light by the author only add to the old historical facts about the McMahon Line and are joined to one another in such a way that the conclusions likely to be reached by a reader cannot be different, except superficially, from the conclusions which have

1833:

The material in my dissertation, which was successfully presented in 1958, rewrote as a book during the course of 1959 while I was living in Malaya. It was impossible to check my notes against the original sources in London in the PRO and the India Office Library; I lacked even more common standard

1240:

As for republication by OUP Pakistan, we have to check what their editorial policy is. Republication just means that the second publisher judged it to be worthy enough to be republished, for which they could have gotten some local reviews. The books are only meant for sale in Pakistan. So it doesn't

1874:

We can't just go by the Indian communications. Diplomatic communques are loaded with subtle messaging. But the letter you quote is from 4 November 1959. In response, Zhou En-lai wrote back saying that a certain 1956 map of China showed the correct boundary. (According to some Indian commentators it

1236:

Academic works are expected to be peer-reviewed, by experts. Self-published books may not have been reviewed at all. Scholarly reviews in journals ameliorates this to some extent. But they still can't substitute for peer reviews, which are expected to be quite thorough. It is not unusual for a book

999:

Why not just remove Mehra, Raghavan and Jha? They add no value to the article except nationalist bickering. I don't see anything scholarly in their reviews. Mehra's reference to Ayesha Jalal as if she is a benchmark for anything is indicative of shabby scholarship. I would say do away with all 3 of

1818:

So far as the Government of India are concerned, their position has been clear and precise from the beginning and indeed for a long period of years and there has been no doubt about it That position was described in detail in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Indian Prime Minister’s letter of

608:

But is the new information provided by Professor Mehra really new? From a purely academic point of view, the newness of information on a particular subject is to be determined in accordance with the criterion whether it helps or is utilized in a re-examination of the existing state of knowledge on

717:

Thanks very much, WBG. Since there has been no response in 24 hours, I am removing the "pro-India" label attached to Parshotham Mehra. I am also removing the "tendentious" label, supposedly provided by Neville Maxwell, a journalist with no credentials for history. If the other editors come by, I

1866:

On the first point, the allegation that the Indians were not talking is certainly false. Rather, it was the Chinese that were unwilling to talk. Premier Zhou kept dodging saying that they had just gone into Tibet and they were still studying the issues. Discussions happened only after the

487:

It all boils down to one thing in the end of the review. That Mehra is pro-India. It is important, not coatracking, because it is imperative that we identify biased sources. If the issue is about specialisation then we should remove Mehra's review of Alastair Lamb's first book altogether.

1698:, I wrote that paragraph and I think it is critical to understanding how Lamb's anti-India prejudices built up from early on. I can use some more quotation marks if the text makes you uncomfortable and I can look for some other counter-evidence for how he could have been mistaken. 667:

reverse-walk from the mainstream view which equates with the Indian official position on the issue, (as Kumar agrees!)? If anyone reading a historical narrative (which Kumar has praised so extensively!) comes to the conclusion that the Indian viewpoint was correct, what's Kumar's

1107:.) Also, using the book as a reference in other Knowledge articles needs to be reviewed, and accordingly other work of Lamb also. This is the case with many authors on Kashmir, no matter which side they are on. I was reminded of the sheer scale of this trying to expand the draft 1772:

The idea that the 1899 line was a suitable compromise is quite obvious. But nobody has said that China would be even remotely interested in it. In fact, in 1962, China was pushing forward well beyond the 1899 line (even though the 1956 claim line was somewhat close to it.) --

502:

If history is on India's side (assuming that to be the case), you can't fault the historian for it. If the history is accurate, that is all there to it. The reviewer hasn't pointed out any such inaccuracies. So this review doesn't warrant any such branding as "Pro-India". --

1725:

to London to check the India Office Records right around this time, and Gopal reported back to Nehru in February 1960. The problem is that Lamb thinks everything that was available in London is the sacred truth, without ever looking at the records in Delhi and Calcutta. --

1741:

I have checked the source now and it turns out that the meeting with the Indian High Commission official was in the first half of 1962. He must have been on leave to do some research in the India Office Library in London. His suggestion to the official was that the 1899

1878:

But when the border negotiations opened in 1960, the Chinese officials produced a new claim line. The war happened to establish this new claim line. This is marked in red. So, if Lamb was trying to push the 1899 line in the first half of 1962, he was behind the curve.

1182:

in Delhi or Calcutta) and summarised them. That is a scholarly contribution. Whether his treatment is neutral, unbiased and "disinterested" (as scholarly works are expected to be) is not at all established. Plenty of reviewers have pointed out problems in this

1824:

ON the contrary to Lamb the white paper also says - "It is to be observed that at no time up till now has any precise statement been made by the Chinese Government as to where according to them, their frontier is." (The historical division of MEA is very

613:

history, and not on the politics, of the McMahon Line. The merit of the book, according to the author, consists in the fact that it provides a proper historical framework for an analysis of the evolution of India’s north-eastern frontier......

1659:

Keeping these two points in mind PRIMARY & DUE / UNDUE I have added a counter argument for this, or rather some balancing lines. (Nitin A. Gokhale's quote is important because it counters both Maxwell and Lamb at the same time; the

1819:

September 26 to Premier Chou En-lai. In this letter, the Prime Minister of India has given the historical background of the traditional Sino-Indian boundary and the basis of its delineation in different sectors in official Indian maps.

1807:

The Indians, from at least 1959 and probably rather earlier, refused to enter into any realistic discussions with China about what any objective observer could only regard as an unsatisfactorily defined border. (Review: War in the

1701:

I am a bit confused about the timelines now. The "misquotation" that he complains most about is a letter of Nehru dated 26 September 1959. This was published in White Paper II on 4 November 1959. But our write-up says he went to

427:, the author has not only abdicated his responsibility as a scholar but also made himself vulnerable to the charge that he has indirectly tried to reinforce the official position of India under the garb of academic objectivity. 866:

I have no clue what's the bibliography-section stood for and why the have been sfn-ed without any pointing cite in the text. Please clarify what exactly you seek; prior to a botched re-insertion that's giving a bunch of errors.

1882:

As for the misquotations, I am still investigating. But the 1899 letter, which I mentioned above, is said to have been misquoted by Nehru. There were allegedly several other such "distortions and misquotations". --

1190:

were expert reviews written by reviewers that have expertise in the field themselves. We need to weight the reviews appropriately. It is scandalous that even anonymous reviewers who only identified themselves by

1759:

to half the Aksai Chin region, indeed to that half through which their famous road from Sinkiang to Western Tibet ran; and it was a declaration of British willingness to let the Chinese have this bit of barren

1086:

these three points, I think the reliability of the book, and accordingly the reliability of the author, needs further elaboration in the review section. (I understand that the book isn't attempting neutrality

2158: 1166:

for unearthing this extremely useful piece of information. It never crossed my mind to check the background of Roxford Books. The company being owned by the Lamb family definitely means that the books are

1435: 2079:

Does anyone know if Alastair Lamb is still alive? I tried to get in touch with him in 2015 through the University of Hertfordshire History Department and Dr. Beverley Southgate but was unsuccessful...

1186:

I also need to re-read all the reviews to understand what they have actually said. Many of the reviewers wrote boiler plate reviews that summarised the books and assessed that they were valuable. Only

2100: 601:

among Indian scholars on problems relating to India’s north-eastern frontier. Professor Mehra recounts those circumstances (post 1914 developments) in a fairly systematic and convincing way.

1514:

Isn’t that only Mehta, one Indian magazine article, and one opinion article that described Lamb as "pro-Pakistan"? Such a statement would need more RSes describing him as such for it to be

1074:). (It is to note that "some time (in the 1990s India's) Home Ministry issued a blanket order to Customs that any book written by a foreigner on Kashmir should automatically be held back."( 1442: 1175:

at some point. To my own mind, the books cannot be entirely dismissed. They are valuable and there are plenty of reviews that vouch for the fact that they represent "scholarly" material.

956:

has generated considerable debate. But, the book brands even Gandhi and Nehru as ideologues, and presumably no Indian would escape the label from Anderson. But can this be taken to be a

1267:). It's not a separate publisher.Re-publication doesn't mean that there were lower publication standards than a first publication. None of the major academic publishers do that. — 2143: 1834:

works of reference. in 1962 in fact when I was able to go through the material in the PRO and the India Office Library (British India and Tibet: 1766-1910 By Alastair Lamb)

1477: 2153: 267: 1679:

The Gokhale quote sounds like something for the "Reception" section, while it should be made more clear that that paragraph in "Research" is his own account of events. —

1071: 2163: 2148: 1364:

Other versions of A Disputed Legacy, though of the "reputed" Oxford University Press (OUP), are reprints in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad OUP or Pakistan OUP

1287:

Responding to the ping. Unfortunately, I am not knowledgeable enough about this subject to provide an informed opinion. I recommend escalating this to the

1459:

I do understand that other sources use better terms for him, but that only supports the pro-pakistani point. Pakistani sourcing praising him makes sense.

844:

Somehow the year got recorded as 2016, probably the date of the online publication. I will double check all the citations to make sure they are right. --

2178: 1918:

Notes, Memoranda and Letters Exchanged and Agreements Signed Between the Governments of India and China: September - November 1959, White Paper No. II

390: 380: 431:, but one who has even the least interest in the meaning and significance of those facts would find in it more bulk than substance. (emphasis added) 2128: 2123: 1598:. I don’t know if there are publicly available good photos of him, but that doesn’t mean that he is a hoax?The only image that I could find is in 262: 151: 99: 1813:

The White Paper below clearly says that the Indians were talking to the Chinese at the highest levels even in 1959. Nehru's letter is looong too.

1765:

This particular understanding of the 1899 line is not shared by any other scholar I know. The condition, relinquishing 'shadowy suzerainty' over

2183: 2173: 2138: 243: 233: 2029: 2010: 1991: 1940: 928: 555:

The McMahon Line and After: A Study of the Triangular Contest on India's North-eastern Frontier between Britain, China, and Tibet, 1904-1947

2097: 103: 2168: 2133: 356: 2104: 1178:

However, "scholarly" simply means that Lamb has studied the primary sources (mainly British colonial records available in London, but

107: 986: 878: 800: 772: 701: 435:

Only somebody wildly out of their mind would think that "leaving it to the reader to form his own judgement" makes one "pro-India"!

98:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 628:

tone from the above piece in light of the extensive praises showered on him across the first, second and parts of last paragraph?

1594: 1104: 94: 58: 1464: 347: 308: 1237:

of 400-500 pages to take about a year to get through the peer reviews, all of which contributes to the quality of the book.

1588: 1743: 1580:

Several of the descriptions and reviews of his work are from published academic papers in reputed academic journals like

1484: 446:

the present day border dispute between China and India. Probably Mehra is deliberately staying away from that because he

976: 890: 868: 790: 762: 691: 33: 1108: 597:

The two books (the one being reviewed and the earlier one), together, entitle Professor Mehra to be acknowledged as an

2065: 1875:

was the same as the 1947 KMT claim line.) It is not marked on the map here, but it is quite similar to the blue line.

1844: 1746:

would be a suitable compromise for resolving the Aksai Chin dispute. His understanding of the 1899 line is said to be:

1669: 1623: 1570: 1551: 1495: 1395: 1346: 1321: 1116: 208: 198: 146: 1338: 1648:"The more he checked the published Indian documents, the more convinced he became of distortions and misquotations." 1064: 1063:, though of the "reputed" Oxford University Press (OUP), are Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad OUP or Pakistan OUP. The 1661: 1651: 2060:

Accordingly, I think it would be easier to create a separate article for the book, and a summary on Lamb's BLP.

682:

Also, that the reviewer has been very cautious to not accuse him of pro-India-POV in any direct manner, I find

1470: 21: 429:

A person interested in historical facts just for their own sake would no doubt find the book extremely useful

2061: 1840: 1695: 1665: 1619: 1566: 1547: 1509: 1491: 1391: 1357: 1342: 1317: 1256: 1163: 1142:

attribution for statements of opinion or when presenting a position where there are competing viewpoints of

1112: 1092: 1088: 1644:"When the China–India border dispute was getting critical in 1962, Lamb was conducting research in........" 1916: 1766: 1135: 1111:, and have given up for now. Maybe an "Unbalanced section" tag can be placed on the section for the book. 1053: 1009: 442:

book whereas the reviewer, who is by no means a specialist in the area, is interested in its significance

1542:

Please direct me to the correct google search for this? I'm lost. How can finding the pictures of such a

1449: 1075: 2098:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2023/04/06/alastair-lamb-obituary-india-pakistan-kashmir-history/

493: 39: 1858: 1868: 1599: 1301: 1217: 2080: 1888: 1778: 1731: 1711: 1246: 1207: 1032: 965: 952: 849: 734: 726:) 16:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I will retain Leo Rose, however, as he is a well-respected scholar 723: 644:

book may not be so true. This was his main bone of criticism and it was academically sane, atleast.

526: 508: 466: 1721:

I think Lamb is also wrong to assume that no action was taken based on his complaints. Nehru sent

1260: 355:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2084: 1970: 458: 1546:

be so difficult. (Probably I am making some mistake somewhere in the search) Thanks in advance.

1654: 1131: 1024: 1005: 925: 832: 2028:

sfnp error: no target: CITEREFVan_Eekelen,_Indian_Foreign_Policy_and_the_Border_Dispute1967 (

476:

The catchphrase here is "In view of the remarks made earlier." These are the earlier remarks:

1722: 1139: 899: 824: 683: 566: 489: 423:

In view of the remarks made earlier, however, it is difficult to resist the impression that

414: 86: 1673: 1582: 1294: 1199: 518: 339: 2023: 2009:

sfnp error: no target: CITEREFFisher,_Rose_&_Huttenback,_Himalayan_Battleground1963 (

1884: 1774: 1727: 1707: 1703: 1562: 1341:. Please have a look and see if any changes are needed before I add it to RSN. Thanks. 1330: 1242: 1203: 1127: 1028: 1020: 961: 947: 845: 730: 719: 522: 504: 462: 2117: 2004: 1954: 1515: 1448:...Alastair Lamb's Kashmir, A Disputed Legacy was an exercise in legal quibbling... ( 1314: 1288: 1172: 1168: 1143: 1681: 1604: 1520: 1368: 1334: 1269: 1222: 1148: 443: 190: 2049:

The problem with writing and anaslysing the book on Lamb's Knowledge article is:

1483:...A credible author who has published about Kashmir dispute is Alastair Lamb...( 919: 686:'s cherry picking attempts based on 2 phrases to be mildly amusing. Insertion of 1802:

Seemingly, another contradiction with reference to the 1959 letter; Lamb writes:

828: 893:, while I have your attention, can I ask you to look at this fragment as well? 727: 659:

which is in weird territory. Why the heck shall Mehra need to actively work to

570: 323: 302: 70: 52: 1657:. Also the paragraph is lengthy and therefor DUE / UNDUE comes into pictirtes. 663:

comment on the political developments in a self-declared historical narrative

329: 180: 76: 1171:. We will have to take the sourcing of his material on all kinds of pages to 835: 759:

It's amusing that the bunch of SPAs failed for so long to latch on the error.

1939:

harvp error: no target: CITEREFRaghavan,_War_and_Peace_in_Modern_India2010 (

1202:

would be able to help us disentangle the mess that this page has become. --

935:

Footnote 46: Even such a staunch apologist for New Delhi as Srinath Raghavan

450:

to get enmeshed in these disputes and devalue his own work in the process?

276: 252: 174: 140: 1052:) is a self-published source belonging to Alastair Lamb and Venice Lamb. ( 675:

If anything; the review seeds some doubt on Kumar's inherent biases et al.

1427: 352: 160: 1934: 2108: 2088: 2069: 2053:

The book has to be written according to a BLP page and not a book page

1973: 1892: 1848: 1839:

Coming to the point, which "misquotation" is being talked about here?

1782: 1735: 1715: 1690: 1627: 1613: 1574: 1555: 1529: 1499: 1399: 1377: 1350: 1325: 1308: 1278: 1250: 1231: 1211: 1157: 1120: 1036: 1013: 988: 969: 880: 853: 802: 774: 738: 703: 530: 512: 497: 470: 1985: 1220:

in addition to Roxford Books, then the book wasn't self-published. —

206:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the 650:

which tend to support India’s official position on the McMahon Line

106:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 1857: 1455:

Authors such as Parshotam Mehra in the article also point to this.

960:

about all these individuals and used for willy-nilly branding? --

203: 419:

the full paragraph of which you have cherry-picked a quote says:

2024:

Van Eekelen, Indian Foreign Policy and the Border Dispute (1967)

1195:

have been portrayed on this page as worthy sources. Far from it.

748:

Kautilya3, you have not provided the corresponding citation for

1990:

sfnp error: no target: CITEREFMehra,_An_"agreed"_frontier1992 (

1646:

There are some heavy lines put forward as a statements such as

1264: 444:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Go-up.svgto

15: 2005:

Fisher, Rose & Huttenback, Himalayan Battleground (1963)

1422:

If Alastair Lamb is pro-Pakistani, it should accordingly be

275: 251: 1049: 752:

and instead mistakenly inserted the cite for his review of

2159:

Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Mid-importance

1642:

There is a large paragraph in the "Research" section -

1390:

Thanks for the comment. However, this is going nowhere.

624:

How on earth, can anyone say Mehra to be Pro-India in a

1241:

certify the quality of the books at a global level. --

750:

Mehra's review of Kashmir: A disputed legacy, 1846–1990

690:

is wildly inappropriate in light of no other evidence.

1004:

reviews not intra-scholarly nationalist mudslinging.

425:

by leaving it to the reader to form his own judgement

1255:

Oxford University Press Pakistan is a branch of the

351:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1953: 1650:It is to be noted that this has been taken from a 1915:India. Ministry of External Affairs, ed. (1959), 202:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 896: 1935:Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (2010) 1441:...notoriously pro-Pakistan Alastair Lamb... ( 1831: 1816: 1805: 1749: 1706:in 1959. So something isn't fitting here. -- 1434:...pro-Pakistan historian Alastair Lamb ... ( 1337:, I have written a draft for this over in my 1291:with notices on the relevant WikiProjects. — 1043:A Disputed Legacy - originally self published 647:Kumar then decides to sprinkle two phrases:- 595: 479: 421: 8: 2144:Start-Class India articles of Low-importance 1638:Countering some of Lamb's China-India claims 1362:Looks largely okay to me, although point 2 ( 1218:was published by the Oxford University Press 1091:), but Knowledge is required to be neutral ( 1751:It conceded, subject to several conditions 1313:I will go-ahead and try to add this to the 640:in the part. area; his claims of writing a 19: 1476:...diplomatic historian Alastair Lamb... ( 950:is of course a well-known critic, and his 553:Kumar, Mahendra (2016), "Parshotam Mehra: 297: 135: 47: 2154:Mid-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles 1463:...Renowned journalist Alastair Lamb... ( 811:Mehra, Parshotam (1993). "Alastair Lamb, 1902: 1103:both sides fairly which goes against - 910: 545: 299: 137: 49: 2164:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles 2149:Start-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles 2101:2601:281:8200:6580:A9D9:A084:47BB:FD75 1757:Chinese did possess some kind of claim 1363: 656:vulnerability to pushing pro-India-POV 654: 648: 1924:, Ministry of External Affairs, p. 53 813:Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846–1990 718:don't mind discussing it further. -- 438:It is clear that Mehra was writing a 7: 1910: 1908: 1906: 345:This article is within the scope of 196:This article is within the scope of 92:This article is within the scope of 2094:Well, I guess that he is no longer! 1755:to the issue in question, that the 1662:review of Maxwell's work is by Lamb 1618:Thanks for linking the photograph. 592:Mahendra Kumar writes about Mehra:- 453:I note also that this is a page on 38:It is of interest to the following 1986:Mehra, An "agreed" frontier (1992) 1637: 1095:). Currently the article seems to 807:The correct citation is this one: 457:, not on Parshotam Mehra. You are 284:This article was last assessed in 14: 1109:Draft:List of books about Kashmir 636:Mehra's work doesn't lead to new 2179:Low-importance Pakistan articles 1664:as mentioned and linked above.) 1382: 781: 332: 322: 301: 183: 173: 159: 139: 79: 69: 51: 20: 1957:(1971), "War in the Himalayas: 1469:...Historian Alastair Lamb... ( 1105:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 385:This article has been rated as 238:This article has been rated as 116:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 2129:WikiProject Biography articles 2124:Start-Class biography articles 1418:Alastair Lamb is pro-Pakistani 365:Knowledge:WikiProject Pakistan 119:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 2184:WikiProject Pakistan articles 2174:Start-Class Pakistan articles 2139:Low-importance India articles 1589:The English Historical Review 1538:Photographs of Alastair Lamb? 1070:The book is banned in India ( 1037:23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 1014:22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 989:18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 970:16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 881:12:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 854:14:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 803:13:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 775:13:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 739:16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 704:12:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC) 517:I have asked for comments at 368:Template:WikiProject Pakistan 359:and see a list of open tasks. 263:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir 260:This article is supported by 1828:As for Malaya, yes it says - 1315:reliable sources noticeboard 1289:reliable sources noticeboard 1265:OUP Pakistan's About Us page 531:14:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 513:14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 498:13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 471:11:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 104:contribute to the discussion 2089:06:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 2056:Length has to be considered 2042:A new article for the book 1480:) (Note same as wiki intro) 1216:Regarding SPS, if the book 829:10.1177/0020881793030001011 218:Knowledge:WikiProject India 2200: 2169:WikiProject India articles 2134:Start-Class India articles 2109:04:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 2075:Alastair Lamb still alive? 2044:Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy 886:Pro-India Srinath Raghavan 571:10.1177/002088177501400119 391:project's importance scale 244:project's importance scale 221:Template:WikiProject India 2070:04:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 1893:14:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1849:13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1783:13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1736:20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1716:19:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1691:11:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1674:04:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1628:02:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1614:11:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1575:07:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1556:06:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1530:11:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1500:06:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1400:03:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 1378:03:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 1351:03:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 1326:11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1309:03:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 1279:15:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1251:14:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1232:14:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1212:13:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1158:12:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1126:As typically required by 1121:06:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1065:OUP Pakistan page is live 384: 317: 283: 259: 237: 168: 64: 46: 1744:Macartney–MacDonald Line 1050:http://roxfordbooks.com/ 1257:Oxford University Press 1198:I would like to see if 975:Will comment tomorrow. 918:Perry Anderson (2013). 891:Winged Blades of Godric 1863: 1836: 1821: 1810: 1762: 1565:even crossed my mind. 1162:Well, well! Thank you 944: 619: 484: 433: 280: 256: 28:This article is rated 1961:by Neville Maxwell", 1861: 1793:Another contradiction 1753:not directly relevant 1595:International Affairs 1424:mentioned in the lead 817:International Studies 559:International Studies 279: 255: 95:WikiProject Biography 1963:Modern Asian Studies 1869:Kongka Pass incident 348:WikiProject Pakistan 1478:Indian Express 2020 1471:The Nation Pakistan 1019:Have you ever read 958:scholarly consensus 953:The Indian Ideology 921:The Indian Ideology 1864: 1099:sides rather than 1067:and verifies this. 1059:Other versions of 898:Pro-India scholar 281: 257: 122:biography articles 34:content assessment 1959:India's China War 1696:DiplomatTesterMan 1686: 1609: 1577: 1525: 1510:DiplomatTesterMan 1373: 1358:DiplomatTesterMan 1306: 1274: 1227: 1164:DiplomatTesterMan 1153: 1061:A Disputed Legacy 930:978-1-78168-259-3 761: 760: 688:Pro-India scholar 557:(Book review))", 405: 404: 401: 400: 397: 396: 371:Pakistan articles 296: 295: 292: 291: 199:WikiProject India 152:Jammu and Kashmir 134: 133: 130: 129: 2191: 2034: 2033: 2021: 2015: 2014: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1983: 1977: 1976: 1951: 1945: 1944: 1932: 1926: 1925: 1923: 1912: 1723:Sarvepalli Gopal 1689: 1684: 1612: 1607: 1561: 1528: 1523: 1513: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1376: 1371: 1361: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1277: 1272: 1261:OUP's About page 1230: 1225: 1156: 1151: 1093:WP:NEUTRALSOURCE 1089:WP:BIASEDSOURCES 984: 979: 938: 937: 924:. Verso. p. 85. 915: 900:Srinath Raghavan 876: 871: 839: 815:(Book review)". 798: 793: 789: 785: 784: 770: 765: 758: 757: 754:The McMahon Line 699: 694: 668:issues/concerns? 574: 573: 550: 418: 373: 372: 369: 366: 363: 342: 337: 336: 335: 326: 319: 318: 313: 305: 298: 226: 225: 222: 219: 216: 193: 188: 187: 186: 177: 170: 169: 164: 163: 162: 157: 154: 143: 136: 124: 123: 120: 117: 114: 100:join the project 89: 87:Biography portal 84: 83: 82: 73: 66: 65: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2114: 2113: 2077: 2047: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1952: 1948: 1938: 1933: 1929: 1921: 1914: 1913: 1904: 1795: 1687: 1680: 1640: 1610: 1603: 1583:Pacific Affairs 1540: 1526: 1519: 1507: 1420: 1387: 1383: 1374: 1367: 1355: 1302: 1295: 1275: 1268: 1228: 1221: 1154: 1147: 1136:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 1054:WP:QUESTIONABLE 1048:Roxford Books ( 1045: 997: 980: 977: 945: 943: 942: 941: 931: 917: 916: 912: 888: 872: 869: 864: 862:Removed section 810: 794: 791: 782: 780: 766: 763: 746: 695: 692: 589: 584: 579: 578: 577: 552: 551: 547: 412: 410: 370: 367: 364: 361: 360: 340:Pakistan portal 338: 333: 331: 311: 223: 220: 217: 214: 213: 189: 184: 182: 158: 155: 149: 121: 118: 115: 112: 111: 85: 80: 78: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 2197: 2195: 2187: 2186: 2181: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2146: 2141: 2136: 2131: 2126: 2116: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2095: 2076: 2073: 2058: 2057: 2054: 2046: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2016: 1997: 1978: 1969:(4): 389–397, 1955:Lamb, Alastair 1946: 1927: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1862:Aksai Chin map 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1837: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1814: 1811: 1803: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1770: 1763: 1747: 1718: 1704:British Malaya 1699: 1683: 1658: 1652:primary source 1639: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1606: 1544:reputed author 1539: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1522: 1489: 1488: 1485:eurasia review 1481: 1474: 1467: 1465:Pakistan today 1457: 1456: 1453: 1446: 1439: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1370: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1271: 1238: 1224: 1196: 1193:their initials 1184: 1176: 1150: 1130:(particularly 1080: 1079: 1068: 1057: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 996: 993: 992: 991: 948:Perry Anderson 940: 939: 929: 909: 908: 904: 895: 887: 884: 863: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 842: 841: 840: 745: 742: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 677: 676: 670: 669: 645: 630: 629: 594: 593: 588: 587:Kumar on Mehra 585: 583: 580: 576: 575: 565:(1): 169–171, 544: 543: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 485: 477: 459:WP:COATRACKing 409: 406: 403: 402: 399: 398: 395: 394: 387:Low-importance 383: 377: 376: 374: 357:the discussion 344: 343: 327: 315: 314: 312:Low‑importance 306: 294: 293: 290: 289: 282: 272: 271: 268:Mid-importance 258: 248: 247: 240:Low-importance 236: 230: 229: 227: 224:India articles 195: 194: 178: 166: 165: 156:Low‑importance 144: 132: 131: 128: 127: 125: 91: 90: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2196: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2119: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2074: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2045: 2041: 2031: 2025: 2020: 2017: 2012: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1993: 1987: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1950: 1947: 1942: 1937:, pp. 260–261 1936: 1931: 1928: 1920: 1919: 1911: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1870: 1860: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1820: 1815: 1812: 1809: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1748: 1745: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1656: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1585: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1537: 1531: 1527: 1517: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1454: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1417: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1365: 1359: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1307: 1305: 1299: 1298: 1290: 1286: 1280: 1276: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1085: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 994: 990: 987: 985: 983: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 954: 949: 936: 932: 927: 923: 922: 914: 911: 907: 903: 901: 894: 892: 885: 883: 882: 879: 877: 875: 861: 855: 851: 847: 843: 837: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 809: 808: 806: 805: 804: 801: 799: 797: 788: 779: 778: 777: 776: 773: 771: 769: 755: 751: 744:Missing cites 743: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 725: 721: 705: 702: 700: 698: 689: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 673: 672: 671: 666: 662: 658: 657: 652: 651: 646: 643: 639: 634: 633: 632: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 620: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 600: 591: 590: 586: 581: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 549: 546: 542: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 515: 514: 510: 506: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 486: 483: 478: 475: 474: 473: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 455:Alastair Lamb 451: 449: 448:does not want 445: 441: 436: 432: 430: 426: 420: 416: 407: 392: 388: 382: 379: 378: 375: 358: 354: 350: 349: 341: 330: 328: 325: 321: 320: 316: 310: 307: 304: 300: 287: 286:February 2019 278: 274: 273: 269: 266:(assessed as 265: 264: 254: 250: 249: 245: 241: 235: 232: 231: 228: 211: 210: 205: 201: 200: 192: 181: 179: 176: 172: 171: 167: 153: 148: 145: 142: 138: 126: 109: 108:documentation 105: 101: 97: 96: 88: 77: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2078: 2059: 2048: 2043: 2019: 2000: 1981: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1949: 1930: 1917: 1897: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1865: 1832: 1817: 1806: 1756: 1752: 1750: 1720: 1647: 1643: 1641: 1600:this article 1593: 1587: 1581: 1543: 1541: 1490: 1458: 1423: 1421: 1293: 1292: 1192: 1187: 1179: 1100: 1096: 1083: 1081: 1060: 1025:FreeKashmiri 1006:FreeKashmiri 1001: 998: 981: 957: 951: 946: 934: 920: 913: 905: 897: 889: 873: 865: 823:(1): 85–91. 820: 816: 812: 795: 786: 767: 753: 749: 747: 716: 696: 687: 664: 660: 655: 649: 641: 638:developments 637: 625: 615: 611: 607: 603: 598: 596: 562: 558: 554: 548: 540: 480: 454: 452: 447: 439: 437: 434: 428: 424: 422: 411: 386: 346: 285: 261: 239: 209:project page 207: 197: 191:India portal 93: 40:WikiProjects 1436:India Today 684:Alive4islam 626:so-definite 490:Alive4islam 415:Alive4islam 30:Start-class 2118:Categories 1898:References 1825:active!!!) 1808:Himalayas) 1655:WP:PRIMARY 1296:Newslinger 1200:Newslinger 1144:due weight 1132:WP:BALANCE 1082:Combining 995:Suggestion 906:References 541:References 408:Pro-India? 1988:, p. 160. 1885:Kautilya3 1775:Kautilya3 1760:highland. 1728:Kautilya3 1708:Kautilya3 1331:Kautilya3 1243:Kautilya3 1204:Kautilya3 1140:WP:INTEXT 1029:Kautilya3 1002:scholarly 962:Kautilya3 846:Kautilya3 836:0020-8817 731:Kautilya3 720:Kautilya3 599:authority 582:Mediation 523:Kautilya3 505:Kautilya3 463:Kautilya3 113:Biography 59:Biography 2081:Kamtal75 2007:, p. 69. 1428:MOS:LEAD 665:but also 661:not only 519:WP:NPOVN 362:Pakistan 353:Pakistan 309:Pakistan 2026:, p. 9. 1563:WP:HOAX 1450:Outlook 1339:sandbox 1183:regard. 1138:), use 1128:WP:NPOV 1101:explain 1076:outlook 1021:WP:NPOV 440:history 389:on the 242:on the 1974:312054 1592:, and 1516:WP:DUE 1443:DailyO 1173:WP:RSN 1169:WP:SPS 36:scale. 1971:JSTOR 1922:(PDF) 1767:Hunza 1682:MarkH 1605:MarkH 1521:MarkH 1369:MarkH 1335:MarkH 1270:MarkH 1259:(cf. 1223:MarkH 1188:a few 1149:MarkH 1027:? -- 729:. -- 521:. -- 461:. -- 215:India 204:India 147:India 2105:talk 2085:talk 2066:talk 2030:help 2011:help 1992:help 1941:help 1889:talk 1845:talk 1779:talk 1732:talk 1712:talk 1670:talk 1624:talk 1602:. — 1571:talk 1552:talk 1518:. — 1496:talk 1396:talk 1347:talk 1322:talk 1303:talk 1263:and 1247:talk 1208:talk 1134:and 1117:talk 1097:take 1084:only 1033:talk 1010:talk 966:talk 926:ISBN 902:... 850:talk 833:ISSN 787:Done 735:talk 724:talk 653:and 527:talk 509:talk 494:talk 467:talk 102:and 2062:DTM 1841:DTM 1666:DTM 1620:DTM 1567:DTM 1548:DTM 1492:DTM 1392:DTM 1343:DTM 1318:DTM 1180:not 1113:DTM 982:WBG 874:WBG 825:doi 796:WBG 768:WBG 697:WBG 642:new 567:doi 381:Low 234:Low 2120:: 2107:) 2087:) 2068:) 1965:, 1905:^ 1891:) 1871:. 1847:) 1781:) 1734:) 1714:) 1685:21 1672:) 1626:) 1608:21 1586:, 1573:) 1554:) 1524:21 1498:) 1430:) 1398:) 1372:21 1349:) 1333:, 1324:) 1273:21 1249:) 1226:21 1210:) 1152:21 1119:) 1078:)) 1072:HT 1035:) 1023:, 1012:) 968:) 933:. 852:) 831:. 821:30 819:. 756:. 737:) 563:14 561:, 529:) 511:) 496:) 469:) 270:). 150:: 2103:( 2083:( 2064:( 2032:) 2013:) 1994:) 1967:5 1943:) 1887:( 1843:( 1777:( 1730:( 1710:( 1668:( 1622:( 1569:( 1550:( 1512:: 1508:@ 1494:( 1487:) 1473:) 1452:) 1445:) 1438:) 1394:( 1388:N 1360:: 1356:@ 1345:( 1320:( 1245:( 1206:( 1115:( 1087:( 1056:) 1031:( 1008:( 978:∯ 964:( 870:∯ 848:( 838:. 827:: 792:∯ 764:∯ 733:( 722:( 693:∯ 569:: 525:( 507:( 492:( 465:( 417:: 413:@ 393:. 288:. 246:. 212:. 110:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index