Talk:Kashmir conflict

Pathankot tehsil

Coming back to this issue after a long break, it came as surprise to me to find that the Pakistani delegation never laid claim to the Pathankot tehsil. V. N. Datta says:

Besides 17 districts listed in the notional divisions in the Appendix to the 3rd June statement (minus a non-Muslim majority area of Pathankot tehsil) the Muslim League claimed the following areas:...The Muslim League claimed 19 1/2 districts of Punjab for the new West Punjab leaving 9 1/2 districts for East Punjab in India.

Sir Zafrullah Khan does not mention Pathankot tehsil by name, by he does concede:

We rested our case on the tehsil, or sub-district being adopted as the unit for the purpose of determining contiguous majority areas.

So, it appears that the Pakistani delegation had always conceded the Pathankot tehsil to India, ergo they conceded India's land route into Kashmir. I don't really know what the controversy is about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Gilgit-Baltistan is not part of kashmir

Before 1936 Gilgit-Baltistan was consist of several independent states. During soviet expansion in 1936 British government in subcontinent planned to merge all the states of Gilgit-Baltistan and name it as Gilgit agency then it was given on the lease for 60 years to Maharaja Hari Singh who was the ruler of kashmir at that time. But later on during partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh was paid by Indian counterpart to expand there borders till Gilgit-Baltistan region. At that time Major Brown was assigned as political agent for Gilgit-Baltistan by British govt and he come to know about the fake contact, which was not accepted by British govt as Maharaja Harisingh was not authorized to do any contract with any state. Then group of rebellions and with the help of british forces invade dogra raj. Then later on people of Gilgit-Baltistan merge with the Pakistan on bases of 2 nations theory. Ismailmughal89 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Neither is Ladakh a part of Kashmir, nor Jammu, nor Mirpur nor Poonch. But the British terminology is that 'Kashmir' (see that page please) covers all of them.

Also your history is quite broken. Baltistan was never a part of any 'agency'. And, the Gilgit Agency (which controlled Chilas, Ishkoman and other principalities) and the Gilgit Wazarat (the leased area) were different. Half the bill for the Gilgit Scouts was paid for by the Maharaja throughout its lifetime, and it was fully paid by him after its return in June 1947. Major William Brown, who was the commander of Gilgit Scouts (not the Political Agent of Gilgit Agency), was Maharaja's employee when he mutinied. So were Mirza Hassan Khan and the rest of the 6th Kashmir Infantry stationed at Bunji. And Colonel Aslam Khan, who took over the command from William Brown, was an employee of the Azad Kashmir provisional government.

Gilgit-Baltistan (then called 'Northern Areas') was signed over to Pakistan by the Azad Kashmir government in the so-called Karachi Agreement. Since Pakistan never wanted to make this agreement public, it generated the propaganda that Gilgit wasn't part of Kashmir. It is quite nonsense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan has been a part of Kashmir historically and politically. Of course , Geographically it is a different area of the realm of Jammu and Kashmir , however , it is a part of the Kashmir conflict. Muhammad Taha Tariq Ahmed Kashmiri (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

Change first para from; The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir region. To; The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India, Pakistan and China over the Kashmir region. Bobbharti (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. China is mentioned in the following sentences. If you think it should be in the first one, please get consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Please change

despite being a Muslim-majority state

to

despite being a Muslim-majority region

since the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 ended its status as a state. This text appears in two places, and please change both of them. 208.95.49.53 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you.--regentspark (comment) 16:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning Demchok

I believe that it is useful to specifically mention that India also administers the Demchok region because this area is disputed between China and India, with India retaining control. Demchok lies within the newly created union territory of Ladakh, which is mentioned within the article, but China only claims Demchok; this dispute differs from Pakistan's stance, for example, which claims all of Ladakh as a part of their territory. I think that by not mentioning Demchok specifically, an implicit bias in favor of India is made since it obscures Demchok as a part of Indian-administered Ladakh, which China does not agree with.Somenolife (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, couldn’t one just state China’s claims (which is broader than just the village of Demchok) in the same sentence where it is mentioned that India and Pakistan claim the entire region? Then there’s no redundancy in listing Demchok in the other sentence. Also, I suppose the Pakistan claim for all of the region needs to be modified since they relinquished their claim to the parts administered by China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Demchok is part of Ladakh. So, you can't say "Ladakh and Demchok". It doesn't make sense and it would be confusing.

The rest of what you say is also not correct. China also claims and administers Aksai Chin, which is also part of Ladakh. This contradicts your "China only claims Demchok".

It is also not true that India "administers Demchok". It administers part of it.

As for Pakistan, I haven't seen any definition of what Pakstan considers part of Ladakh and what it doesn't. The Palistani maps don't define the Ladakh-China border.

Finally, there is a large dose of WP:OR in everything you say because there is no known reliable source on Kashmir conflict that talks about Demchok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I’m assuming you’re addressing Somenolife, not what I said? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion. I would also add that "Demchok" in this context means the stretch of the Indus valley that is marked as disputed on the maps. Some people call it the "Demchok sector". See the Charding Nullah page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also to clarify, what I meant by modifying the statement in the lead about the Pakistan claim is that the lead currently says

Both India and Pakistan claimed the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, although Pakistan has recognized Chinese sovereignty over the Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin since 1963

. My proposed modification is to just state the current claims of all three nations: India claims the entirety of the former princely state, Pakistan claims the entirety outside of Aksai Chin + Trans-Karakoram Tract, and China claims Aksai Chin + Trans-Karakoram Tract + anything else that may be supported by RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am unsure what is confusing you. I understand that both Aksai Chin and Demchok are considered a part of Ladakh, but so is Gilgit Baltistan. The point I am making is that only the Demchok sector of Indian administered Ladakh is claimed by China. I think it is relevant to mention this area separately as I am sure that PRC maps display it as a part of their territory.

@MarkH21: If you can make you proposal work, then I see no problem with it.Somenolife (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ladakh, as defined on Wikipedia, does not include Gilgit Baltistan. But it does include Demchok. So, I am afraid you are speaking apparent nonsense.

I maintain that your proposals are WP:OR. Please find a source that says anything about Demchok in the context of Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The CIA map in this article includes the Demchok sector in the Chinese claims. A Washington Post article also mentions that China claims it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of them "says" anything about Demchok. Yeah, when maps are drawn, something has to be put there. But what is there to say about it as part of the conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This academic paper gives a detailed look at the border claims, saying on page 39:

South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown by British maps as being in Tibet [...] In the Demchok region the British line followed a course very similar to that of the present Chinese claim.

The discussion on page 45 is also relevant in a general sense. Page 49 gives a detailed look at the historical claims and modern claims regarding Demchok and Khurnak.

From recent news articles, there were some recent standoffs (2019, same one, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2014, 2009) The article here also mentions a disputed area at Trigs Heights on the eastern border of Ladakh. Bara Hoti is also another area of dispute, which an India Times article described:

Barahoti is located in the Middle Sector of the 3440 km long LAC. China keeps asserting itself here. Back in 1958, India and China termed Barahoti as a disputed territory, where neither side would send their troops. In the 1962 war, China only focussed its operations in the western and eastern sectors.

(other sources: 1969 CIA report, FirstPost)

This should be sufficient to show that the claim should be mentioned. There are surely more academic sources, in particular, on the Demchok and Khurnak claims. I’d be willing to delve deeper (so we are not relying on one academic paper, one WSJ article, and several Indian newspaper articles) and then add some mention to the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21, I am sorry, I am unable to figure out which of these sources has made Demchok to be part of "Kashmir conflict". Can we focus on the issue at hand please? (I appreciate the source by the way. But it was Alastair Lamb's book that was used in writing the Charding Nullah article. So I believe his material has been already covered there.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure what the issue is. Demchok is claimed by India to be part of Ladakh and the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Demchok is part of the disputed areas in the Kashmir region between India and China.

If it’s about directly using the words Kashmir conflict, here is a European Foundation for South Asian Studies overview on the Kashmir conflict that lists Demchok in the disputed areas, an article from The Diplomat doing the same, and an academic paper:

The Kashmir conflict has become the apple of discord primarily between India and Pakistan, and secondarily with China, since their first year of independence. [...] Today, India administers approximately 43 percent of the region (Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier); Pakistan administers approximately 37 percent of the region (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit- Baltistan); and China administers the rest 20 percent of the region (Demchok district, the Shaksgam Valley, and the Aksai Chin region).

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So, these three sources say that China administers "Demchok district", contradicting The Washington Post, which said that India administers it.

In either case, the mention need only be made in the China sentence, not India or Pakistan. I suggest that we add "a portion of the Demchok region" to the China sentence, and remove the offending Demchok mention in the India sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)