Talk:Ajit Doval

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

Article needs to be deleted not meeting WIKI standards[edit]

Article seems to be an attempt to glorify some person ajit doval of no consequence.Article be deleted. Debashishh 13:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Kumar Doval is a fine Strategic analysts.[edit]

An excellent writer must meet some criterias like: his writings must appear at multiple places or his ideas must also find an echo somewhere else. Ajit Kumar Doval meets these criterias. His articles have not only appeared in the Times of India but also on other internationally renowned much respected scholastic websites such as [[1]].For instance his article on strategic affairs titled "Impending Storm" -[[2]]

Kushwah 10:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree with you. Krishna Kaasyap 07:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links[edit]

The external links section was way too long, so I'm moving it here in its entirety. The bulk of the links that I clicked through, such as news coverage that mentions him, is not appropriate in external links sections unless the link adds a degree of information that is beyond the scope of the article. Individual links may be put back on a case-by-case basis if they meet our external links guidelines

Category:Indian expatriates in Pakistan[edit]

@Mar4d:, don't involve in edit war without discussing on talk. Prove that he currently lives in Pakistan?--Human3015 15:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same Category was removed by another user earlier but still you are keep on adding same category without making consensus here. See here--Human3015 16:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Views section[edit]

Wikiseemeatwiki, Human3015, There is too much playing around with edits to the article. Please discuss the matter here and come to a consensus before doing edits. This is WP:BLP article. No views should be present in the lead section unless they are backed up by impeccable scholarly sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiseemeatwiki, here we are quoting Doval, so we should quote whixch thing he said in which context. He said "If you do one more Mumbai then you will lose Balochistan", so we should quote whole sentence instead of quoting just "you will lose Balochistan". Don't be a biased editor please. --Human3015 talk • 15:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human3015. I have worded the sentence as "claiming Indian leverage". The leverage stands regardless of whether something happens in future or not; it is the reaction that depends on preceding incidents. If you want, you can "quote" his exact statement after the claim to give the context. However, without quotes, it appears as a fact that Pakistan, as a state, did attack Mumbai, which is a mere allegation.

Also, in the lead section are reasons to his fame. Since we added award there which made him famous in India, for which there is a separate section, we can also add his most controversial views, for they have also given him much fame in Pakistan

We should also not add award in lead, I'm removing both. It can be added in other section. There is separate sections for award and views. We can add both things in respective section. --Human3015 talk • 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::: I agree with Human3015. You should either quote the whole sentence or none at all. Quoting half the sentence misrepresents the source. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 Fair enough then. just to highlight the spirit of things: using terrorist proxies has proven dangerous for the subcontinent. Both India and Pakistan have alleged it, and try to hide their own misdeeds. Ultimately, anybody who espouses this policy, be as a first strike or in an alleged retaliation, is playing with fire. Let us try not to hide this, especially, when it is being so openly discussed as in a lecture to University students. A university is a place to discuss growth and future, not terror tactics.

Kautilya3 I had posted a link to a letter to the editor, and you have removed it. A letter to an editor is also an opinion, it goes through a vetting process and gets approved by the editorial process of a Newspaper; only that it is shorter. On what grounds did you choose to remove it?Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NEWSORG very carefully. I think you are trying to turn Wikipedia into a WP:SOAPBOX. Minimize opinions and focus on facts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 Recall my edit: It gave an example of "criticism from Pakistan", which the article still mentions under views section; the cited letter IS in fact another example of criticism of what Doval said. I fail to see how, citing another reference, changes the fact that Doval's views have been criticised in Pakistan, as the article claims. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you haven't read the policy about news organizations. Read the first bullet again and think carefully. If you still don't understand, take it to WP:RSN. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 I have read it. I understand the importance of authenticity of a claim: however, the letter in question was not used to make the original claim of Doval's remarks. Instead, the letter to the editor in question is a commentary on Doval's remarks, and is cited to be exactly so. Quote, if you feel first bullet in WP:NEWSORG or any of the subsequent bullets, contradicts that. Otherwise, please allow me to revert the change. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you have one citation already, there is no need for another one breaking further rules. Normally, we don't even use the Opinion columns in newspapers as reliable sources. But we can imagine that the regular columnists have some authority and knowledge. Letters to editors are completely out of bounds, unless they are written by well-known scholars. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about the general picture a bit, please don't get all worked up about this. A neutral third party source who takes cognizance of everything happening in the subcontinent will doubtless balance the Indian threats against all the Pakistani mischief over the years. When such third party sources appear, that is what Wikipedia will report. Neither Indians nor Pakistanis make up WP:THIRDPARTY. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Human3015 Following the ethics preached above, I believe you should have initiated a talk instead of undoing the change unilaterally. Secondly, here is what Doval ACTUALLY said (listen to the talk): " You may do one Mumbai, you may lose balochistan". First of all who is "you"? Is it Pakistani state, Pakistani intelligence agency, or non-state actors? He does not specifically reference. Yet, the text on Wikipedia had put in QUOTES: "Pakistan does one more attack like Mumbai". Moreover, there is no global consensus that Pakistani STATE was behind the attack, as the text tried to imply by quoting Doval incorrectly. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, if an admin comes and takes a look at this, he/she will cut out the whole discussion of what he said. His speech is a primary source, and we must use secondary sources as per WP:RS. So, I suggest that you look for secondary sources. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiseemeatwiki:, who will lose "Balochistan"? Pakistan state? non-state actors? terrorist? or who else? It is Pakistan state who will lose Balochistan. So in his statement "you" means "Pakistan state". And if you are doing edits without making consensus on talk page then why you are blaming others if they are reverting you? And it is well established and certified fact in US and Indian courts that Pakistan's state agencies were behind Mumbai attacks. You seems to be Pakistani so you will not not accept it even if God says that "Pakistan done Mumbai attacks". So there is no point in discussing that issue with you.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 The state will lose Balochistan but so will the criminal groups who are acting from within the state. But you are delibrately missing the main point: the text now CORRECTLY quotes what Doval actually said, which is also what is mentioned in the reference. You can not put in quotes what the person in question did not say. I think the text now is an accurate reflection of what was said, rather than previous text which was Indian propaganda.
Human3015 Your latest undo-edit is reporting text which DOVAL did not say. 2 references on this article are given which EXACTLY state this: ""You can do one Mumbai, you may lose Balochistan" .

see this: 'You can do one Mumbai, you may lose Balochistan'. saddahaq.com, Retrieved 14 May 2015. Stop putting in a text which you WISH Doval had said, and leave the text which he ACTUALLY said. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: Also watch this video, already referenced in the article at 2:17. Doval states: "You can do one Mumbai, you may lose Balochistan". [3]. This is what the article now quotes, correctly. There is nothing added or taken away from it now, and therefore, I see no reason why you should undo this text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiseemeatwiki (talk • contribs) 9:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
ISI behind 26/11 and Indian embassy bombing in Kabul: BBC and ISI behind Mumbai attacks, bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul: BBC report. So now BBC is also doing Indian propaganda. Must be paid by RAW.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Human3015: Let us agree on what Doval said. Let us take the argument of what has been claimed and counter claimed in the media reports on Mumbai attacks page. The fact remains that it is INCORRECT and DISHONEST to QUOTE something which the person in question did NOT say EXACTLY as you quoted. I have given 2 references to that. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And he never claimed "Indian leverage" in Balochistan in video. He is just an advisor, his advice is not compulsory on government. He is neither Prime Minister nor got that job by doing some prestigious exam. It is just honorary post in Government. His views are not views of Government of India. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 He actually did "claim" the leverage. The reason the word "claim" is there is because it is his claim alone (since we are getting strictly legal here; reality is that a top govt official can not make silly claims and lecture it to students) as opposed to saying "India is interfering in Balochistan" because we are only referring to this lecture. If there is no leverage, then he wouldn't make the claim. However, whether he was referring to Pakistani state, or elements within the state who he ALLEGEDLY thinks were behind the attacks, is not clear. He did not clarify that much. Yes, we can infer what he meant, but then we can equally infer that this is the BIGGEST indian admission for fomenting trouble in Balochistan, and also that their National Security advisor is a Terrorists himself who is in cahoots with Taliban who butchered 150 kids last year, something that horrified most indians as well - "allegedly". Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiseemeatwiki, he never claimed that "its India's plan" or "its Indian leverage" to separate Baloch from Pakistan. Its your original research that you are linking it to whole of India. He can have his personal opinion, and he may advice it to Government of India but its upto government to accept his advice or not. Because decisions are taken by top Secretaries and ministers of that department, not by advisors. Second thing is that, you are taking sure shot that "whole of Indian state" want Balochistan separated from Pakistan from Doval's statement but when same Doval blames Pakistan for 26/11 Mumbai attack you don't take it sure shot and you say it is just allegation and we should write word "alleges" even if Doval didn't used that word. So you have two different interpretations for statement of single person with respect to two different nations. He never said that its India's leverage or plan to separate Baloch from Pakistan. Its his personal opinion. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 Care to show, where I said that: "he claimed that "its India's plan""? Secondly, when did i take the shot at the entire Indian state or what it wants? Neither did I, nor the text in the article states that. Although, it is most certain what Indian government wants and has done, and what their top security man licks his lips talking about, this is not what I have suggested to be included in the text. The text modifications have been absolutely rational. The previous text was WRONG to put in Quotes what Doval had said exactly; that is an IRREFUTABLE fact that you can not deny, try as you may. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiseemeatwiki, I have listened video again, video starts with he is saying "Pakistan sponsors terrorism in India". In entire video he is refering to Pakistan. So here "you" means "Pakistan". And tell me time in video when he says "It is India's leverage to separate Balochistan from Pakistan". Because you wrote it that way. I see no-where he claimed it on behalh of Republic of India. I see name of Sastra university on his dais, it is lecture in university in front of students, it is not his lecture in any security meeting in front of security specialists or strategy makers of India. I wonder how we can attach his this lecture to official strategy of India as you are writing it. He will surely not discuss official strategy of India openly in front of students. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 So Indian National Advisor is narrating fables to University Students, while in private he preaches peace, love and prosperity while addressing RAW agents? An active field agent, is teaching university students to support and use terrorists who butchered 150 kids in a school, in cold blood, while he is officially appointed as the National Security Advisor to the PM. Who are you trying to fool Mr "Human" who believes in humanity regardless of who they may be? Try as you might to pretend otherwise, your national advisor preaches terror in Universities of all the places. The article text looks at this moment looks reasonable. If you feel ashamed of that, talk to him; I am done with this despicable being, and the topic. Wikiseemeatwiki (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015 and Wikiseemeatwiki: This discussion has seriously degenerated into a forum discussion. It is extremely disruptive. Please stop it and find something else to work on. Admin Abecedare has promised to take a look here, and you should wait for his input. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

I was contacted about this article on my talkpage, and having read the above talkpage section, I agree with Kautilya that it has degenerated into an argument better suited for a forum. More importantly, the current Views sections is both poorly written (in grammatical terms) and simply not very illuminating for any reader not already immersed in the subject. So lets try to refocus the debate.
First, since Ajit Doval is (at least currently) a policy adviser, I think a views section is useful to explain the ideas and doctrines he is associated with and has propagated. So the next steps are to (a) find the best available sources on the topic, and (b) summarize them accurately. Will appreciate your help on findng sources; ideally looking for comprehensive and independent secondary sources; and analytic pieces rather than plain news stories or interviews. On a quick search found this Indian Express article that summarizes Doval's writings on various policy issues. Are there other similar or better sources, especially in scholarly literature or in policy magazines? Abecedare (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also this Gulf News article has some useful coverage. Note that as these are opinion pieces, we may need to attribute some of these views to the respective sources. But right now I am not worrying about the writing part, and just trying to collect the best available sources. Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More potential sources:
  • Hall, Ian (2015). "Is a 'Modi doctrine' emerging in Indian foreign policy?". Australian Journal of International Affairs. 69 (3): 247–252. doi:10.1080/10357718.2014.1000263.
  • Joshi, Manoj (2015). "The Credibility of India's Nuclear Deterrence". In Krepon, Michael; White, Joshua T.; Thompson, Julia; Mason, Shane (eds.). Deterrence Instability and Nuclear Weapons in South Asia. Stimson Center. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapter= (help)
  • Mahadevan, Prem (18 December 2011). The Politics of Counterterrorism in India: Strategic Intelligence and National Security in South Asia. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0-85772-096-2.
We should also consider adding a bibliography section for Doval's own writings, eg this article.Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my edit constantly being deleted?

I have provided sources for the widely believed media story that Doval was "undercover" in Pakistan, and how he has described his time there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhulandhar (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Shaniyadav2110 (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ajit_Doval&oldid=1206992929"