Talk:1947 Poonch rebellion

POV

This article currently is out of sync with the section Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Rebellion in Poonch, which contains scholarly coverage with disparate views. The sources used here are not reliable for historical information. Neither do they cover all view points. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vamsee614: as I have already said above, the sources are not of good quality. Even though Snedden is a scholar, you can't keep on using his web page article. You need to find his book or some peer-reviewed article. The content you are taking from there is indeed problematic. (He says, almost all the princely states acceded to India or Pakistan by 15 August. No, they didn't. Only one state acceded to Pakistan, that was Junagadh. I think this web page article is substandard.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

All Kashmir conflict articles are highly contentious. You need to use the best quality sources, and cross check with multiple sources. No more web pages, or op-eds, or newspaper histories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Motivations

"A further factor motivating Poonchis was the creation of Pakistan and the Maharaja’s reaction to their support for it. The transfer of British power to the new dominions of India and Pakistan, coupled with Hari Singh’s vacillation on the accession, inspired much interest, even fervour, among the people of J&K. In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan." This is there in the book also. Check for yourself. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Poonchis wanted to separate and merge with Punjab already in the 1930s. It is clearly established in the content you have copied from the First Kashmir War. So there is nothing new here. What is new is the idea that the Maharaja "vacillated". He didn't. He wanted to remain independent. That is quite firmly established in multiple sources. I can also produce sources that say that every group in J&K supported him in this decision, except for the Muslim Conference. So, the "fervour among the people of J&K" in Snedden's claim is hyperbole. He doesn't have any evidene for it. "In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan" is fine. That is the only thing that is factual. The rest is Snedden's POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. — Vamsee614 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ved Bhasin

And how is Ved Bhasin an unreliable source ?! -- Vamsee614 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bro, Ved Bhasin is not just a senior journalist, he is also a primary source(WP:PRIMARY). He was a live witness to many of the happenings in Jammu. We won't take his POV, but when he states something as an occurrence, how can we label it as unreliable unless we have another more reliable and conflicting source? -- Vamsee614 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. You are not allowed to interpret primary sources.

You should also note that Ved Bhasin was a student leader in the Jammu City. He had no first hand knowledge of what happened in Poonch. He doesn't say where his information about Poonch came from. He is writing 70 years after the events. All these factors mean that no great weight can be placed on his coverage, especially statements like "the Maharaja demobilised Muslim soldiers suspecting their loyalty". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ved Bhasin's observations regarding the Jammu & Kashmir happenings appear to have come after a lot of research on the subject with hardly any unreliability. It is a known fact that Hari Singh disarmed the Muslim soldiers and even redistributed the collected arms to Hindus and Sikhs for 'self defense'. I don't think it is strange to state that he suspected their loyalty.

It is also observed here — "Another feature of the heightened anxiety was that in Jammu, the Muslim civil officers and policemen, whose loyalty was suspected, had also been sacked. The state administration had not only demobilized a large number of Muslim police but a large number of the Muslim soldiers serving in the state army were disarmed and had been deserted and humiliated, leaving mainly Hindus and some Sikh officers. In one instance, the Jammu cantonment Brigadier Khoda Bukhush was replaced by a Hindu Dogra officer. There were also reports that the Maharaja of Patiala was not only supplying weapons, but also that a Sikh Brigade of the Patiala princely state troops was operating in Jammu and Kashmir." — Vamsee614 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ved Bhasin is giving personal recollections, rather than reporting results of any kind of research or investigation, decades after the events. You can regard him as a WP:PRIMARY source, and use it as the policy states (for additional support).

I have given you information from Ahmad Hassan Dani, an impeccable scholarly source, that there were conspiracies among the Muslim officers of the Army. Ignoring that information and merely stating that the Maharaja suspected their loyalties is one-sided and misleading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No no, suspicions arised due to conspiracies only. I'm not saying there were no conspiracies. They were definitely there. And that might be the undoubted reason why Hari Singh suspected all Muslim officers. That's all I'm saying. — Vamsee614 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Patiala troops

Regarding Patiala troops, multiple sources say that one battalion (which could be anywhere between 300 to 800 soldiers) of Patiala troops was in Kashmir. When Alastair Lamb raised a stink about in the 1990s, I remember researching into it (in a high-quality library that I had access to), and finding that these forces were requested by Hari Singh. His own troops were scattered around the border and none were left to guard Srinagar, hence he asked Patiala for help. Hari Singh faulted his former Army Chief Henry Lawrence Scott for doing the "scattering" and complained about it in multiple places. I was personally convinced about it at that time and concluding that Lamb was wrong. Lamb claims that it was done at New Delhi's behest.

There was a separate episode where I found an involvement of Vallabhbhai Patel (writing from memory). After Pakistan imposed a blockade, Hari Singh had requested arms supplies from India. India agreed to send them, and orders were issued. But the British general (either Lockhart or Bucher) didn't do it, claiming some difficulty or the other. Hari Singh appealed again, and Nehru quizzed why the arms weren't sent. Patel said there were "all sorts of difficulties" in doing it, and it was at this point that he asked Patiala to send arms supplies that Kashmir needed. This was all above board, and the letters document it. However, there was nothing about sending troops in the documentation.

Now that you have mentioned it, I have done a search, found this from Shubh Mathur:

An often overlooked fact is that there were aleady Indian troops on the ground in Jammu and Kashmir well before the controversial date of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. The state of Patiala had acceded to India in August 1947 and by September, the former Maharaja of Patiala's troops, now de jure Indian forces, were helping Hari Singh put down the armed rebellion in Poonch (Bose 2005; Schofield 2010).

I have checked Bose 2005 and there is no mention of Patiala troops. I have also checked all the books of Bose, thinking he might have gotten the details wrong. No Patiala anywhere. Schofield has only reference to Patiala troops, which says:

Over the next two days they [tribal forces] took Garhi and Chinari. Their main column proceeded on towards Uri, where according to their 'commander' Khurshid Anwar, they encountered 'the first Sikh Regiment of Patiala State'.[17] No one has confirmed when the Patiala state forces arrived, but Alastair Lamb considers the presence of such 'exotic forces' as a covert operation, which, since the Maharaja of Patiala's accession to India, meant they were in fact forces which came under the control of the Indian Union.[18]

So the Patiala troops were in the Kashmir Valley, not in Poonch. So, Shubh Mathur gets it wrong again.

But, re-read the Schofield paragraph again, and the propaganda becomes clear. Khurshid Anwar, the head of the Muslim League National Guard was commanding a 5000-strong Pakistani tribal force invading Kashmir. So this is an attempt to deflect attention from him. Why not claim that the Maharaja already had Indian forces on his soil? Then it becomes all reasonable to have sent Pakistani forces to counter them. Nice try.

By the way, the princely state forces were not under Indian command at that time. Yes, the states had ceded defence and external affairs to India. So, legally, they needed India's permission to send their troops elsewhere. And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Accessions

• Even the line which you contested - "Their expectations were heightened when, by 15 August 1947, almost all of the rulers of Princely India had made accessions to India or Pakistan" - is there in the book. Apparently, everything in that web page is extracted as it is, from the book. By the way, between May 1947 and the transfer of power on 15 August 1947, the vast majority of princely states signed Instruments of Accession. A few, however, held out. Like some border states, Hyderabad, Kashmir, Jodhpur and Piploda. You are right, only one state, Junagadh acceded to Pakistan. The rest of the vast majority had acceded to India. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be there in the book. But it is wrong. See the Princely states of Pakistan page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. So, the heavens weren't falling on 15 August 1947. The Poonchis agitated because they wanted to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And who is denying that? Anyways, "Muslims responded by purchasing fresh weapons from arms bazaars in neighbouring NWFP province." - after having a reliable source(Snedden's book), please tell me how this line is dubious. –– Vamsee614 (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Christopher Snedden is denying it. His theory is that the Poonchis were agitating for Pakistan. The evidence says that they were agitating against taxes. His theory is faulty, based on false premises.

If you look at his book, the majority of his sources are Muslim Conference sources, in particular Sardar Ibrahim's book. He only uses the State government sources for confirmation. He ignores the British government sources. For example, the British High Commissioner's evidence, covered by Rakesh Ankit, is found nowhere in his book. So, I maintain that his book is a biased source. It cannot be treated as neutral third party source. It is also out of date, being based on his PhD thesis done in 1982. You need corroboration from other sources before using his theories. And, when his theories are contradicted by recent sources such as Rakesh Ankit or Ian Copland, the latter take priority. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Arms

The info about Poonchis buying guns from NWFP is sourced to Sardar Ibrahim in Snedden's book. He doesn't say how many guns they were able to buy. When Sardar Ibrahim met Akbar Khan, he asked for 500 guns. So, reason dictates that the number of guns he was able to obtain from NWFP must have been significantly smaller (perhaps 100, perhaps 50). 500 was a big number of Ibrahim. He claimed that, if only they could get 500 guns, they could overthrow the Maharja's government. Akbar Khan instead gave him 4,000 guns. These facts are not mentioned in Snedden's book. Either biased or inadequate research. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Please add the complete information required regarding 'firearms' in the article. Add/refine the necessary content and see that all the tags (neutrality, systemic bias, weasel words etc) get resolved. — Vamsee614 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, this POV-ridden subject is not a high priority for me. I am limiting myself to cross-checking your contributions, but it is your baby. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please quote the exact lines from the sources regarding the firearms deal? I mean the ones that tell about Sardar Ibrahim asking Akbar Khan 500 guns and Akbar Khan giving him 4,000 and all. I don't have access to that book and I need the lines to develop the article. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Please reply to this. I need your quotes here to cite pages and write content there.

References

Neutrality issues

I want to remove the 'disputed neutrality' and 'systemic bias' tags to this article at this stage. So I request any editor to review the whole article and suggest modifications if any, to resolve the neutrality issues. Thank you. Vamsee614 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Please comment on this. — Vamsee614 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We are not there yet. Pakistan's agency in the rebellion is not yet covered. Sources tell us that the Muslim Conference was essentially a wing of the Muslim League, which was waging an undeclared war from across the border. The article portrays it as a purely indigenous development. I will work on it a bit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Now that you have found the page number of the Raghavan book, please compare what it says and what the article says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: "Scholar Srinath Raghavan states that the "gathering head of steam" was utilised by the local Muslim Conference led by Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan to further their campaign for accession to Pakistan, and that, towards the end of August, the Muslim league activists also joined in from Pakistan. " - I think I put the same in the article, as per source, and it clearly states that there was involvement from Pakistan! — Vamsee614 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

What about the rest? Akbar Khan, Mian Iftikhar Malik, Liaquat Ali Khan? You want to add that the Maharaja brutally suppressed the rebellion, but omit the fact the rebellion turned "violent" before then. The First Kashmir War article says that the Muslim Conference wrote to Liaquat Ali Khan on 25 August warning him that Kashmir would be lost, and he initiated actions in response. Isn't it clear that the Muslim Conference and Pakistan had teamed up at the highest levels? These are not just random raids from across the border! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bro, firstly, this is an article only on Poonch rebellion, not the first Indo Pak war. So I'm not sure if all that stuff on Mian Iftikhar Malik, Liaquat Ali Khan, the plans etc is relevant. Anyhow I added that. And no matter how much we try, two facts don't change. One is that Hari Singh was a terrible ruler who was never liked by the Poonchis since the beginning. Poonchis didn't want him since 1930s. Second is that, though Pakistan desperately tried to use force to take the region, its true that it had a lot of support from the people of Poonch. — Vamsee614 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the content needs to be refined to refocus on Poonch. But all these things are interconnected. That is why I felt that a separate article on the Poonch Rebellion is unproductive. But, now that we are here, we need to keep working on it. (I have seen at least one source that said that Mian Iftikharuddin is the one that introduced Sardar Ibrahim to Akbar Khan. I still need to confirm. So he is very much a player.) Secondly, I am not convinced that Pakistan was desperately trying to take Kashmir. Jinnah's strategy was to work on the Maharaja, apply pressure in various ways. There was no hurry. The time was on his side. But the Poonchis precipitated the issue and forced Liaquat Ali Khan to goof up. So, the Poonchis are very much at the centre. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Bhattacharya — this would have been the source, what else? And for some reason this source doesn't appear so professional to me. No citations, too much dramatic descriptions and all! — Vamsee614 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have already commented on it at your talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Pro-Pakistain chieftains

It turns out that that content was actually add by me in the Azad Kashmir page when I was still a newbie editor. It suffers from close paraphrasing as well as undue admiration fro Sumantra Bose. Unfortunately, the scholarly consensus is against Bose. Snedden expresses various doubts about the first provisional government, and the Kashmiri activists have even more serious misgivings. Neither is it clear that this government had anything to do with the Poonch Rebellion, except for the fact Sardar Ibrahim was chosen as the prime minister (and he didn't use a pseudonym). It looks like Ibrahim and Gilkar were the only enthusiasts and the others were lukewarm. I think it is best to mention these two, and leave the rest of the "chieftains" alone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it! Why the conspiracy? Why even to falsely portray that there was a first provisional government on 3rd October? I mean, what's the objective in doing so? Its unclear to me, and so I'm asking.

That aside, that was a quite strange and interesting read! Is it true? I knew Jinnah was not directly involved in these operations, but I thought he was being briefed, at least to a minor extent. But 'give Kashmir to Quaid-e-Azam as surprise'? Ah, seriously! What were they smoking?

By the way, need a small help, I'm not getting notified when someone posts on this page, though I have put it on my watchlist. I'm always checking manually. Can something be done about this? — Vamsee614 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by conspiracy. The article is saying that the first provisional government was a response to the Junagadh provisional government in India, directed top-down. It looks like most of the players were uncomfortable about it, but Gilkar and Ibrahim took the bait. Gilkar seems to be a bit of an idealist and idealogue, and he vanished from the scene. The second government was again directed top-down, in order to provide political cover for the tribal raid.

Jinnah knew something was going on, but he chose not to be informed about the details in order to keep "his conscience clear" [1]. What he knew or didn't know is always open to debate. The fact is that he flew from Karachi to Lahore on 26 October. Before leaving, he had a meeting with the MIM leaders from Hyderabad, who staged their "October coup" in Hyderabad that night. There was supposed to have been a "big bang" on 27 October or soon thereafter, with the two largest princely states falling into Jinnah's lap. I think whether he "knew" or not doesn't matter. He was smart enough to figure it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Note my edit to the 19 July entry in the Timeline. The notion that the Muslim Conference declared in favour of Pakistan on 19 July isn't clear cut, based on Balraj Puri's evidence. In fact, I have seen some other writers say that the "convention" in Srinagar wasn't a controlled meeting of delegates, but anybody could walk in. Since the meeting was in Srinagar, Mirwaiz Yousuf Shah basically packed the meeting with his own followers, who weren't even political activists of any kind, in order to win the resolution in favour of Pakistan. It isn't clear to what extend the real Muslim Conference was supporting it. Sardar Ibrahim, on the other hand, always acted as if he was the real acting president of the Muslim Conference and didn't care a dime for Choudhary Hamidullah. Rakesh Ankit calls him an "eloquent fanatic". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No, what I fail to understand is, was there any real 'taking control' of regions by rebels before any of the two proclamations, or did they just hold meetings and made announcements as a strategy for political reasons? Or is everything ambiguous and nothing can be said beyond doubt? — Vamsee614 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We can assume that Akbar Khan's 4,000 riles and the "condemned" ammunition would have been delivered to the rebels before the end of September. So, the rebels outnumbered all of the State garrisons in Poonch & Mirpur put together. From that point on, the rebels controlled the countryside and the "besieged" garrisons only held the towns. It is hard to say how much control they might have had by 3 October announcement, but by 24 October, they essentially controlled the present day Azad Kashmir (except for the garrisoned towns). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I got it. "Following this victory, the pro-Pakistan rebels of the western districts of Muzaffarabad, Poonch and Mirpur proclaimed a provisional Azad Jammu and Kashmir government in Rawalpindi on October 3, 1947." - Just tell me whether this line should be kept or removed? — Vamsee614 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It can stay for now. I will add a footnote with the names. But that entire section needs to be reworked with more details on the rebellion. The provisional government is really a side note. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Additional information

The first and last paras in the 'Preparations for an armed revolt' section - Mian Iftikharuddin going to Kashmir, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan's approval of plans - I think all this is additional information (not Akbar Khan's guns). They are all connected to tribal invasion and First Kashmir War, but I'm not sure if they are directly related to the Poonch rebellion. The readers can be aware of those parallel occurrences for a broader idea of what was happening, but I feel they should better be added as footnotes in the article, rather than directly in the content. Vamsee614 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What you copied from the First Kashmir War page is quite inaccurate in details. Liaquat Ali Khan ordered a "three-pronged attack", of which one prong were the Poonchis, the second the Pashtun tribals and the third Shaukat Hayat Khan's Punjabi groups. The Punjabi groups merged into the Poonch rebellion, and some (unknown number of) Pashtuns were also part of it. For example, Pashtuns were very much a part of the sack of Mirpur, where 20,000 Hindus/Sikhs got killed, and the sack of Kotli, where 30,000 Hindus/Sikhs got killed. So there are no clear boundaries between the Poonch rebellion and the First Kashmir War. Neither did the rebellion end at any point before the War itself did. Give me a couple of weeks when I will get time to fix things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I have studied the sources available and known to me (Shuja Nawaz, Raghavan and Bhattacharya) and they matched with the content of the article. I am not aware of this three ponged attack and the sources that said about it. So I thought it is adequate. And we shall better limit the scope of this article, up to the phase of the rebellion - when first Azad Kashmir government was formed and Hari Singh lost control over Poonch and the surrounding regions. The later stages, we shall brief under aftermath. They can be covered in detail in First Kashmir War article. Regarding 30,000 non Muslim killings near Kotli and Rajouri, I read that in two Indian military sources while studying about Jammu massacres and was shocked to see that figure. I searched but didn't come across neutral sources which observed the same. If you know a very reliable source that states a similar figure, please tell me because I have been longing to confirm this report. Thank you. :-) Vamsee614 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Idon't know what you mean by the "phase of the rebellion". What event signifies the end of the rebellion?

As I have said right off hand, this article is a WP:POV fork of First Kashmir War. But I have accepted it on the grounds that more detail about the Poonch stuff can be added here, which may too much for the main article. The state forces had garrisons throughout the area, and after the rebellion/war started, some of them fell and some of them held out and were relieved by the Indian forces. The rebels, along with other Pakistani groups, fought both the state forces and the Indian forces. The Poonch town itself held out and became part of the Indian-controlled Kashmir. The rebels were fighting until the ceasefire.

So the war did not end the rebellion. It only intensified it. So, how can you limit the scope? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1) When the content of the article about a specific topic is in sync and consistent with another article of a broader subject, it does not qualify as a POV FORK. If there is a problem in this regard, you may kindly point it out.

2) By 'limiting the scope', I meant keeping the main focus. See the timeline which the article discusses in its present stage. August-September-October, i.e., from the stage when "first sign of trouble broke out in Poonch" to Hari Singh losing his control over a major part of the Poonch region. And you yourself have framed and written the subheadings of that 'stages of revolt' section. You approved it too. So what new/faulty have I proposed?

3) I know, this argument of drawing lines b/w the war and the rebellion is pointless and endless. And it is not the issue. But my goal in creating this article was to focus and elaborate on the initial stages of the rebellion/war in Poonch, till Hari Singh acceded to India, and before India entered into the picture in Poonch (as the article is at present). Of course, the rebellion had support from Pakistan and was joined by Pakistani groups, but still it was a rebellion, with local support, against the existing establishment. You also stated that, by Oct 24th, rebels essentially controlled the region. This can be seen as a significant breakpoint (I'm not saying 'an endpoint'. It is definitely not.) due to a major transition in rebellion/war later. In the next stages, India and Pakistan directly fought against each other through out the J&K border, and of course, the rebels were fighting on the Pakistan side. But it is more of a war than a rebellion. You may call this WP OR, or state any other Wiki policy that I'm currently not aware of, I won't deny to that. And I won't defend that. However you are a very senior editor, and if you wish to expand about the happenings in Poonch during the whole war timeline in the article, I'm nobody to object. But please remember that the overall content of the article becomes vague with no meaningful difference from that of First Kashmir War, and the article's objective becomes trivial and gets diluted. With that, I'm leaving it to your good wisdom. Thank you. Vamsee614 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said previously this subject is POV-ridden. We have practically no information available about it except for Sardar Ibrahim's memoirs. All the scholars have been basciall repackaging what he wrote. Nobody knows anything else. The only other source is Henry Lawrence Scott but his account stops at the end of September. We have no information after that. The October section, the real rebellion, has no content. So, on the whole, this article is a paper tiger. Smoke and mirrors.

However, you chose to call this article "Poonch Rebellion" rather than "Poonch uprising", the term used by Snedden. So that gives us an opportunity to cover the later aspects of the rebellion. Your position that they shouldn't be covered is inexplicable. The POV that has been pushed based on Snedden's book, e.g., [2], needs to be countered. Snedden never mentions Sardar Ibrahim meeting Akbar Khan. His account is completely one-sided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)