Talk:Punjab

Bias of blatant "proud" Hindu User:Utcursch

Hello,

User:Utcursch reverted my edit, claiming the esteemed linguist Christian Lassen's work, which was originally in LATIN (of all languages), published in the mid/early 1800s is superceded by some bit-part Hindu scholars from the 1900s.

It is astounding that Utcursch continues to get away with his BJP-centric agenda, especially as a non-permanent resident of Canada who is hoping to acquire citizenship with his blatant pro-Hindu agenda.

Can someone tell me how a pseudo-wikilink to an India-only journal (unsurprisingly italicised as [Current Science], yet lacking a real wikipedia entry) is a WP:reliable source? It's comical that these sorts of references are defended by Utcursch, but it shouldn't be surprising. "Gaming" of Wikipedia via edit *quantity* (as opposed to *quality*) as resulted in his ilk getting too much authority on matters where they're emotionally and, quite frankly, politically/socioeconomically invested.

Secondly, it even says in the Hobson reference, and I QUOTE

No corresponding term is used by the Greek geographers. "Putandum est nomen Panchanadae Graecos aut omnino latuisse, aut casu quodam non ad nostra usque tempora pervenisse, quod in tanta monumentorum ruina facile accidere potuit" (Lassen,Pentapotamia, 3). Lassen however has termed the country Pentepotamia in a learned Latin dissertation on its ancient geography. Though the actual word Panjāb is Persian, and dates from Mahommedan times, the corresponding Skt. Panchanada is ancient and genuine, occurring in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa. The name Panj-āb in older Mahommedan writers is applied to the Indus river, after [The Greek definition]

So there is no argument from Hobson that the original term of "Five Rivers" was defined and coined in Greek, even though the current usage is Persian. However, that does not mean the original content of the translation was defined by the filthy meat eaters.

Thirdly, the reference to MacDonnell, an equivalent copout to the one from Hobson (BOTH are SIMPLY GLOSSARY entries, not even describing the history or etymology of the term; merely defining in the current verbiage), does not reference the history at all.

When will Utcursch be held accountable? Or his yearn for citizenship by pushing his pro-Hindu agenda (something his people in Ontario get away with, because they are sycophants of Bob Rae) more important than the truth.

To step on Lassen, without demonstrating any scholastic achievement (any type of undergraduate degree could possibly suffice here), on the basis of being an administrator, is egregious.

It is pretty clear that the origin of Punjab, even if it may be persian *now*, was derived from Pentapotamia (which means FIVE RIVERS). Just because the SOOLAI took the gist of the term and translated it to their own language, it does not mean that it was the true etymology of the word.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.154.39 (talk • contribs)

This is not really worth replying to, but for those who are watching this page:

• The anon is a troll / vandal. For example, see [1][2][3][4], or just read the above message ("filthy meat eaters" etc.)
• I did not undo anon's edit because "Christian Lassen's work [...] is superceded by some bit-part Hindu scholars from the 1900s." I undid it because the Christian Lassen translation cited by the anon is a machine translation with several errors, and the other refs cited in the article do not support the anon's claim.

utcursch | talk 03:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Treaties

Many treaties on Punjab and Kashmir are linked.

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846).

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the First Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The discussion below splinters, and may need to be addressed with an RFC or two: (1) is the geographic region the primary topic for "Punjab" or is there no primary topic and (2) if there's no primary topic, what is the best title for the article about the geographic region. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

• Punjab → Punjab Region
• Punjab (disambiguation) → Punjab

– This is suitable for a disambiguation page. Punjab often refers to either the Indian or Pakistani state. Having this page merely named "Punjab" only confuses readers, as the title does not make it clear which "Punjab" is it referring to (one of the states, or the region). A much better solution is to rename this page to Punjab Region, as that is what it refers to, a region named "Punjab". The states named "Punjab" are not named just "Punjab" for this reason. That would be too ambiguous. Instead, searching "Punjab" should lead to Punjab's disambiguation page, where the correct page can be selected. I-82-I (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support No clear WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, disambiguation page should be at the base name.--Ab207 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as misleading. Instead of 'Punjab Region', which seems to imply some sort of official entity which does not exist, how about using The Punjab, the traditional name for the region? It is more WP:concise, and avoids creating the impression of an actual regional entity, which has not been constituted since partition. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How is this not concise? Punjab could refer to one of three places, so Punjab region is as concise as we can get without leading to ambiguity. I-82-I | TALK. 10:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment what about Punjab (geographical region)? That seems to address the concern that it could be mistaken as a unit of government. I-82-I (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as Punjab has too many different meanings, including two modern provinces, and there is not clear primary topic.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the article was previously known as Punjab region and then Punjab (region). I cannot recall who changed it to Punjab based on academia referring to the undivided area as Punjab and not Punjab region. The term Punjab region is more suitable than Punjab as it implies we are talking about an area and not a unified entity. This would be similar to the Balkans article which covers different political divisions.User:Malikhpur (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Punjab is a geographical region. There are separate articles for Punjab in Indian side and Punjab in Pakistani side. So there is no confusion. The other things related to Punjab can me described in Punjab (disambiguation)> — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 08:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is confusion. As you stated, there are articles on the region, as well as the Indian and Pakistani states. Since people could be looking for any of these (and they often are), we should send the there, to choose the right article. I-82-I | TALK. 10:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No matter what the political entities may be today, the Punjab remains as a single region, as it has been since time immemorial. If it is moved then it should be to Punjab (region), as there is no such entity as Punjab Region. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Punjab is a single region, but has different states from different countries in it. Many people are looking for these articles, and therefore should be presented with the opportunity to choose those. I-82-I | TALK. 10:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Which is why we have a hatnote. But the primary topic is the region as a whole. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's a nice WP:CONCEPTDAB. If it must be moved, The Punjab isn't a bad suggestion, certainly better than the proposed title. Red Slash 20:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that the Punjab is also commonly used to refer to the provinces and states, so this is pretty pointless and contravenes WP:THE in any case, as the definite article is almost never capitalised in running text. -- Necrothesp (talk)

I do not think I've ever seen the contemporary sub-national entities referred to as 'The Punjab'. 'The Punjab' clearly refers to the whole historical region, not to either sub-national division. I am aware of WP:THE, but considering WP:NATURAL, the use of the definite article is the most concise way to disambiguate this article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The British province was most certainly referred to as the Punjab (e.g. Governor of the Punjab). And that existed for longer than the modern states yet have done and is just as notable. So even without WP:THE, it would be no disambiguation at all to retitle it The Punjab. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support The disambiguation page provides a very relevant information with their respective links. Punjab region, Punjab state of India, Punjab provinces in Pakistan, other provinces in Afghanistan and also the Old historical geo-region and its provinces are very well mentioned. Any one who is reads wikipedia will find the disambiguation page more helpful than the punjab region page as the disambiguation includes the Punjab region as well as others too. This make wikipedia more useful and ease.for access to information to the users. I highlu support that Disambiguation page of Punjab gets easy access when one searches just 'Punjab'. Taal Saptak (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Per @Taal Saptak Ytpks896 (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think adding "region" to the original name makes a whole lot of difference, but that's just my take. It's a matter of semantics. Mar4d (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Punjab (Province)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Punjab (Province). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Punjab (Province) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Punjab, region" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Punjab, region. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#Punjab, region until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

==

Requesting Semi Protection

Zayne Hijazi (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sikh and Hindu population wrong

There seems to be a issue with the percentage as it says there are more Hindus then Sikhs in Punjab but Punjab India has more Sikhs then Sikhs and there are few Hindus in Paksitan Should be fixed to Sikhism 29 percent and Hinduism 10 percent but not sure how to fix it