Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus

This article is biased, unencyclopedic, and poorly written. It should be completely revised or deleted.

There are so many problem with this article that I'm not sure where to begin.

First off, it provides virtually no historical context. The article starts in media res with anti-Hindu violence in 1990. There is no discussion of the history of the Kashmir conflict dating back to the Partition of India and leading up to this outbreak of violence. It appears to have just "happened" in a void.

Second, it is clearly written from an anti-Muslim perspective. It attributes blame to virtually all Kashmiri Muslims-- "almost all of the Kashmir Valley Islamic crowd killed thousands of Kashmiri Hindus"-- and it describes the violence in an insinuating, conspiratorial manner: "In all, it all seems to be a coordinated way, even though no one takes responsibility for it." All of this is highly unencyclopedic.

A large chunk of the body of the article is just a list of anti-Hindu slogans taken from some Facebook group called "Hindus and Human Rights," which is full of vicious attacks on Muslims and Christians. Again, hardly an encyclopedic source.

Finally, the article concludes with a lament for displaced Hindus who cannot "return to their nativity" and praise for Narendra Modi, with the hope that his recent actions will allow for Hindus to "settle" in Kashmir.

Throughout, and I'm sorry if this sounds mean-spirited, but the article is written in highly idiosyncratic, ungrammatical English, which I would normally go through and correct, but I don't want to be involved in neatening up what is clearly a piece of Hindu nationalist propaganda, not a Wikipedia article.

Now, let me hasten to clarify that I don't object to a discussion of the violence that Muslim militants have perpetrated against Hindus in Kashmir. In fact, you can find an intelligent, well-written discussion of the issue on the Kashmir conflict page. When we already have a sound treatment of the subject, do we even need a page called Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus? After all, as it currently stands, it is just a biased, poorly-written rehash of material that's already covered on Wikipedia. So, unless and until someone with a firm grasp of the subject wants to come onto this page and completely rewrite it, my inclination is to say this page should be deleted, or just redirected to the relevant section of the Kashmir conflict page. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ghhr3mja to http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/2003/chapter9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Many pf the sources used as references are not from any researchers or independent authority but from few political people and Govt. position holders and their books so I do not think the sources are all reliable. Koujaterin (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You can tag any questionable sources with the tag {{unreliable source?}}. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I seriously doubt these source:

• http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/kashmiri-pandits-offered-three-choices-by-radical-islamists/ written by Colonel Tej K Tikoo
• Book "Kashmir: Its Aboriginies and Their Exodus" by Colonel Tej K Tikoo ([1])
• http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf_2014/full_manifesto_english_07.04.2014.pdf

These are not neutral but political. Koujaterin (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Tej K. Tikoo does qualify as a scholar and his book is a reliable source according to our criteria. He seems to be a Kashmiri Pandit activist and so not a WP:THIRDPARTY source. Other sources that maintain some distance from the subject would be preferable. You need to state what content if you find questionable. We can then look for alternative sources that cover those issues.

The BJP's views must of course be attributed, but they need not be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article should be reviewed.It's completly bias and contains false and incomplete stories.This article is intented to divide people.

The article is full of twisted facts,self made stories intented to create hate against kashmiri muslims. No mention of the real facts which is Jagmohan, that engineered the departures of the Hindus so as to leave the government a free hand to deal with Muslim militants or Bomb Parts of kashmir. How kashmiris lived peacufully while in india and pakistan communal riots where happening. this article doesnt have any positive messages of bringing kashmiri pandits back rather its to divide muslims and hindus furthur so that Some organisations who want vote of particular sect could get their votes. Whatever stories are given in this article should be supported by proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:88:24AF:94B:392A:7437:3F51 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits by socks

Many editors are blocked as sockpuppets. --Marvellous Spider-Man 07:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

POV Title

Ethnic cleansing is a POV term and should not be the title. A NPOV title would be ‘Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits.’ or 'Exodus of Pandits from Kashmir'. The latter also is the more commonly used term. See the number of hits for each term on Google please ‘’Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits’’ has 56,400 hits on Google ( https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits#q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits ) and 2,490 hits on Google books ( https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits ) ‘’Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits ‘’ only has 22,700 hits on Google ( https://www.google.co.in/webhp#q=ethnic+cleansing+of+kashmiri+pandits ) and 1,200 hits on Google books ( https://www.google.co.in/webhp#q=ethnic+cleansing+of+kashmiri+pandits&tbm=bks )Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for exodus; WP:CHERRYpicking one politician Mani Shankar Aiyar's argument

In the last 27 years many Indian politician from BJP, Congress and other parties have given statements on 1990 Kashmiri Pandit exodus. Picking a view few politicians is giving WP:UNDUE importance.

Explaining why including Mani Shankar Aiyar's comments are supporting WP:BIASED sources

Mani Shankar Iyer has justified terror attacks in Paris. This man can't give neutral views on this terrorist related incident.

Selectively picking one politician from one party strongly violates WP:NPOV. From where did he get the facts as Tyler Durden mentioned in his edit summary. What he wrote in Penguin, was written without political bias?

A politician who asks for Pakistan's help to defeat political rival and justifies Charlie Hebdo attack, This makes Mani Shankar Aiyar's views as unreliable for this article.

• The militants who killed Kashmiri pandits and the Kashmiri separatists are the one who blames governor JagMohan. The armed separatists allege that it was engineered by Shri Jagmohan, then-governor of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, in order to defame the separatist movement. He denies these allegations., Hurriyat leader blames ex-Governor for exile of Kashmiri Pandits. And Mani Shankat Aiyar was criticized for supporting the Kashmiri separatists like Hurriyat leaders.

WP:FALSEBALANCE

Other sources doesn't support the accusation against JagMohan.

• Terrorist organization offer 5 lakh for the head of Givernor Jagmohan in 1990 (inflation makes this sum more than 5 lakh). This report by India Today praised Jagmohan

• A full-scale insurgency against Indian rule broke out in the Muslim-majority valley of Kashmir in 1990. Dissatisfaction with India had been building up over the previous decade, along with the desire for independence. In 1988 and 1989, armed young Muslim men began to attack government officials and Kashmiri Hindus; some of these young men even went over to neighboring Pakistan to ask for weapons and money. The custodial killings and torture by the Indian authorities of young Kashmiri men suspected of being insurgents made many more Kashmiri Muslims decide to seek military assistance from Pakistan, which had been hosting the decade-long CIA-sponsored jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. from The New York Review of Books
• India TV- What led to the exodus of Kashmiri pandits 26 years ago? - A section of Kashmiris who sympathise with the cause espoused by militants point out that the onus for mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits lies on the shoulders of Jagmohan who was appointed as J&K governor by V P Singh government. Their argument is that Jagmohan deliberately encouraged Kashmiri Pandits to leave the valley so that the operation against militants could be launched aggressively and without bothering for the safety of Kashmiri Pandits who were turning out to be soft targets for the terrorists.

However, Prafulla Ketkar, editor of Organiser, totally disagrees with this version of the explanation.

“This is to totally rubbish. The militancy gained ground in Kashmir much before the arrival of Jagmohan as governor of the state. Pakistan's proxy war against India under its policy of thousand-cuts was well documented way back in 1986. After taking over as Pakistan PM in Dec 1988, Benazir Bhutto made very provocative statements regarding Kashmir. Subsequently, open threats were issued against Kashmiri Pandits asking them to vacate their homes. So, how can Jagmohan be blamed for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits?” Prafulla Ketkar asked.

• 4 Indian Servicemen Killed in Kashmir - Doesn't state that Jagmohan was creating trouble.

• Jagmohan was not popular for his tougher measures among separatists .

• http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tic-Tac-Toe/digvijay-singh-is-lying-about-the-exodus-of-kashmiri-pandits/ There are some editors who try to insert this [Conspiracy theory supported by another politician].

While neutral sources mentioned above and others also in the article don't blame JagMohan (I am not linking them here as they are linked in the article) editors will bring biased sources to insert a conspiracy theory.

Marvellous Spider-Man 07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Also Kashmiri Pandits who were victims of terrorism and refugees (currently not residing in Kashmir) blames pakistan backed terrorism and Kashmiri separatists for their exodus/migration. The victims don't blame JagMohan. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. I know that Pandits are the victims. But Kashmiri seperatists are also party to the dispute here in this issue, and even their POVs are not meant to be censored from representation, for that matter. And its not WP:FALSEBALANCE when it is being supported by adequate sources. In any case, Aiyar is not a supporter of Kashmiri seperatists as you seem to be claiming.
• A politician who asks for Pakistan's help to defeat political rival - Did you read the source? Where did it say that he asked for Pakistan's help anywhere? He is alleged to have said that "with Modi, talks cannot move forward." And Indian Express article even says he denied those allegations. However this has got nothing to do with the subject in discussion.
• Regarding his statements on terrorists attacks, he merely said that those incidents occurred as inevitable backlash due to the Muslim persecution in Middle East by the Western world. Such views are shared and expressed by many liberals across the world, that does not make Aiyar any "politically biased" or "unreliable" to this article.
• Mani Shankat Aiyar was criticized for supporting the Kashmiri separatists like Hurriyat leaders. - You are talking in the context of the Aiyar's recent meeting with Hurriyat leaders. Many politicians, even the BJP ones, like Vajpayee when he was the PM, met Hurriyat leaders when the crisis was on fire. That doesn't make them any non-neutral.
• In any case, the point is that Jagmohan is widely criticised for implementing his Hindu-nationalist policies in Kashmir, and thereby causing the rise of Islamism in the valley. An internationally published (Routledge), independent & neutral expert-source Praveen Swami, which has been present in the article since long back, says this here - [2], and that Jagmohan's denial of secularism and his Hindu-nationalist sentiments made the conflict communal, i.e., as the fight between "Hindu" New Delhi, and its efforts to impose its will in the state, and "Muslim" Kashmir, represented by political Islamists and clerics. The same source (on the same page) also says that during Anantnag riots in February 1986 itself, when Pandits were first threatened to leave their homes, it is the secular parties (which were National Conference in J&K, and INC at centre, at that time) rather than the Islamists, who played a key role in engineering the violence to gain political mileage (basically legitimacy) through religious sentiments. Are you going to tell me that this source is also biased?
• Aiyar's book that has been used in this article, since long before I came here, is a well-published (Penguin Books) source as I have already said, and I used it with attribution. Aiyar neither denied that there was militant-violence, nor said that fear was induced to Pandits due to that violence. He is saying, Jagmohan inflated those fears by portraying all the terrorist violence as communal violence, i.e., anti-Hindu violence. And he is citing the police report from Jagmohan's own book which says that 71 Hindus died out of the 134 innocent civilians who were killed by militants between December 1989 and May 1990, which means that 63 Muslims were also killed. Yet, Aiyar says that Jagmohan decided to send them to Jammu, instead of dealing with the situation efficiently by lessening the fear and re-establishing law and order. This is not a "conspiracy theory".
• None of the sources you provided particularly refute this argument except a two, of which one is a mere opinion blog in Times of India and the other is a statement of editor of Organiser (magazine), which is an outright propagandist publication of RSS and its Hindu-nationalism.
• The whole body of this section in the present article majorly represents that Pandits themselves fled because of their fear due to the violence only. All we have inserted is three lines of a well-published POV against Jagmohan, with attribution. You are welcome to add any quality sources that refute this argument beside this content, but you cannot WP:CENSOR this. This one will stay.
• Please remember that if you use opinions by some individuals that are published in Indian newspapers as the ones you cited here, it'll open the article to use Kashmiri newspaper sources also for such contentious POVs, which are as reliable as Indian ones in this context, as both are parties to the dispute. [3] - Moreover, here is a narrative published in a Kashmiri newspaper that says, according to a letter written by some "23 prominent Kashmiri Pandits" who fled the valley, the whole Pandit exodus is a conspiracy, basically a "drama", orchestrated by Jagmohan along with RSS & BJP, to protect their "Akhand Bharat" interests, a theory which is synonymous to the one you reverted here. So, this one is not even an opinion per se, according to the report. Anyways, if you use newspaper sources for such controversial content, another editor will come and do the same using other conflicting newspaper sources. That will make this article, a POV cesspit, which I'm sure none of us want to happen. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The entire thread is not about removing every JagMohan related contents, but this section is to show that Mani Shankar Aiyar's views can't be used in this article, as it gives undue weight to one sided view. I have given non-Indian source like BBC and New York Times also. I don't have any objection if you insert WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV statement of Kahsmiri separatists and militants about JagMohan as they are related but inserting Mani Shankar Aiyar's views is biased and using it will violate WP:NPOV. Mani Shankar Aiyar's comments are WP:BIASED and gives WP:UNDUE weight and should be removed. You can keep contents sourced from Swami and Victoria, and I didn't remove them as you said above. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Explain how many editors constitute "We"

off-topic

You said All we have inserted is three lines of a well-published POV against Jagmohan, with attribution. You are welcome to add any quality sources that refute this argument beside this content, but you cannot WP:CENSOR this. This one will stay.. Who are you say this one behalf of whom? I want to see where the discussion took place as you made the comment before Kautilya3 made the section, "Refocus". Marvellous Spider-Man 12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC) LOL! I used "we" in a friendly manner to denote that all of us editors, together, are developing this article as a collaborative effort. I didn't know you were such a repulsive editor. By the way, making allegations against editors without evidence constitutes aspersion. I hope you mind that. — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC) When any editor edit contentious article like this, they will say I edited, not we edited. When you make an edit and then comment on talk page that we inserted (while discussing about one particular edit, not every edit on this article), this signals some off-wiki collaboration, which you admitted yourself. I used "we" in a friendly manner to denote that all of us editors, together, are developing this article as a collaborative effort I have also edited this article before. And my reply: no I was not collaborating with you. You were obviously referring about some other editors. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Okay. Have fun with that judgement. :-) −−− Tyler Durden (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC) And calling me repulsive editor is a personal attack as per WP:NPA. --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Refocus

I am afraid this discussion is going all over the place. The only issue that concerns us here is whether Mani Shankar Iyer's view should be included or not. He is certainly notable, a former central minister, and he has written extensively on secularism and Hindu-Muslim relations. The only grounds on which it can be excluded is that it is WP:UNDUE. I don't think it is. There are a large number of people that believe that Jagmohan persuaded the Pandits to leave. In fact, almost all Kashmiri Muslims believe it. But I haven't seen any arguments being made on these grounds. We are not going to settle here the WP:TRUTH of the claims and counterclaims. We can only describe them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

He is notable, but so are many people. We can't include every notable politician's views about this. If Jagmohan has to included then other neutral source should be used. A politician who justifies Paris terror attacks is not a neutral person. I hope Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Owais Khursheed don't come here to oppose me. --Marvellous Spider-Man 12:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

A former central minister, belonging to the opposition party and the largest party in the Parliament at that time, is perfectly qualified to comment on a centrally-appointed Governor. If there are other views that refute what Iyer has said, please feel free to bring them up. I don't want to get into a fine analysis of Iyer's views on all matters here. They are not pertinent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have located a source OPEN magazine that shows that there was too much politcking going on here. So, I am supporting Marvellous. Let us get rid of Mani Shankar Iyer, and find better sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It can be sourced that the exodus and forced migration of Kashmiri pandits started before Jagmohan was appointed Governor. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine Kautilya3, I agree with you. So, what do you say about these scholarly observations?

• Mridu Rai (emphasis mine):

In any case, the idea that encouragement was the sole trigger that incited the departure of such large numbers is hard to believe. If this had been the case, it would have required the mobilisation of state resources on such a large scale that it would have left behind concrete evidence, not just traces in the form of rumours. However, there are many Kashmiri Muslims who have witnessed departing Pandits boarding vehicles organised by the state. Wajahat Habibullah, who was a senior Indian administrator in the state, allows that there may have been some instances of transport being organised for a few groups of Pandits but he denies that this was part of a widespread concerted policy. He adds, however, another element to the various explanations on offer for the Pandit migrations. He recalls groups of Muslims appealing to him to stop the Pandits from leaving, which led him to suggest to Governor Jagmohan that a television broadcast be made advertising the request of hundreds of Muslims to their Pandit compatriots not to leave the valley. According to Habibullah, Jagmohan did not agree to this suggestion. Instead he made several announcements that reassured Pandits that if they did decide to leave, refugee settlement camps had been set up for them and also that departing civil servants among the Pandits would continue to be paid their salaries. The political scientist, Sumit Ganguly, adds another important factor - that Jagmohan had also announced that his government would not be able to guarantee their safety, if Pandits decided to remain in the valley. Although not an indication of a coordinated government policy to engineer the departure of the Pandits, these were signs certainly of a government not making great efforts to prevent the Pandit exodus. The reality is probably a combination of all these elements. What can be said with as much certainty as it is possible to have in these circumstances is that Kashmiri Pandits must have felt a distinct threat to their safety - whether an immediate threat or a sense that their future, that of their families and their property was no longer secure in the valley. This sense must have varied from family to family and individual to individual. If they had not felt endangered in this way, it would be extremely difficult to explain how such large numbers would give up and leave the place that had been their homeland for centuries.

• Alexander Evans (emphasis mine):

The claim that there was official Indian government complicity in the departure of the KPs lacks corroborating evidence. There was no mass requisitioning of transport and no state-wide administered evacuation. Even if carefully concealed, such an operation would leave traces. Wajahat Habibullah, a senior Indian Administrative Service officer, insists that the Kashmir state administration did not encourage the Pandits to leave. He does say that there may have been odd examples of official transport being made available to evacuate odd families. In March 1990, Habibullah was in the southern town of Anantnag, receiving delegations from Kashmiri Muslims seeking to prevent the Pandit exodus. ‘Suddenly one day about 300 people arrived … led by an MLA [Member of the Legislative Assembly]. They said, ‘Look, Kashmiri Pandits are leaving, stop them’. Habibullah offered to make a television broadcast if they would confirm that they wanted the Pandits to stay. This was recommended to Governor Jagmohan, who chose instead, however, to announce the establishment of three refugee camps and add that salaries of displaced civil servants would continue to be paid. This encouraged the Pandits to leave but, as Habibullah emphasises, this was more a failure of administration than evidence of a deliberate state policy to induce their departure. [...] The public rhetoric of some of the more Islamist militants in the Valley, with calls for an Islamic state, although aimed primarily at Indian rule, struck a chilling chord with KPs. This in turn sparked off an exodus, which was not actively combated by Governor Jagmohan’s administration (during whose tenure, almost 90% of the departures took place). As one senior security official there at the time put it, ‘I have no evidence … Jagmohan did anything to encourage [the Pandit exodus] … but he also did nothing to discourage it.’ Sumit Ganguly agrees that the Pandits left because of Jagmohan’s hints that their safety could not be guaranteed, and because the fanatical religious zeal of some of the militant groups spread fear among the Pandit community. P.S. Verma echoes this; his interviews with migrant Pandits found few who had actually been personally harmed or threatened to leave the Valley (and many who had been begged to stay by their Muslim neighbours). A research study conducted by postgraduate politics students at the University of Jammu in 2001 found that 2% of KPs surveyed had received threatening letters; however, over 80% had not received any form of direct threat. Nevertheless, as Verma states, most of these migrants ‘felt very much threatened in an atmosphere of unabated violence, particularly during January–February 1990 when the major exodus took place’.

— Tyler Durden (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You can add contents from neutral sources without cherrypicking and WP:SYNTH. The problem, is that if you insert one politician's statement, then you have to insert every politician and notable people like Anupam Kher and Ashok Pandit as they are also Kashmiri pandits like Vidhu Vinod Chopra. And another author mentions that blaming jagmohan for exodus is not true.

• Rahul Pandita in his interview to Wall Stret Journal- This book always remained in the back of my mind, and in the last few years I’ve realized I’ve been getting more and more angry about the kinds of untruths being spoken about the circumstances that led to our exodus.

WSJ: What are those untruths?

Mr. Pandita: That the Indian state was responsible for the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, or the former governor Jagmohan, or because the Indian state wanted to deal with the majority community – the Muslims – more firmly. I think the essential thing I want to portray is that in 1989-90 there was a deep divide between two communities in Kashmir – the Muslims and the Pandits. And the Kashmiri Pandits became victims of the brutal ethnic cleansing which was perpetrated by the majority community backed by Islamist militants, not the other way around. That is one distinction that has to be made very clear.

• Forbes India- My book is called Our Moon Has Blood Clots. And it’s a memoir on growing up in Kashmir as a religious minority, essentially, Kashmiri Hindus, also known as Kashmiri Pandits—a small, miniscule community that lived in Kashmir for hundreds of years and were forced into permanent exile as refugees in their own country in 1989-90, when an Islamist movement broke out in Kashmir Valley. And we faced the brunt and the brutalisation in a series of violence led by the majority community in Kashmir. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Sumit Ganguly's assessment is right. I think Jagmohan realised that he couldn't guarantee their safety, so he decided to not make claims in that regard. This does not amount to encouragement to leave. The Kashmiri Muslim claim is not supported by the scholars.

The Kashmiri Muslims view the Pandit exodus from the Valley as a willful political decision implemented through government support provided by Governor Jagmohan’s regime.[41: interview] Most Kashmiri Muslims articulate this idea without an attempt to debate why a financially and professionally successful community such as the Pandits’s would willingly leave their homes in the exotic Kashmir Valley to live in shanty refugee camps. One interviewee particularly mentioned that the Pandits had always been educational elites of Kashmir and were always pro establishment, sabotaging the efforts of Kashmiri Muslims instead of joining their voices.[42: interview]

This appears to be another one of those self-made myths that the Kashmiris believe in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but at the same time, scholars are also saying that there is the failure of administration in preventing the exodus. — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but they are cagey words. Is it the job of the administration to ask people to stay back and offer themselves up as sacrifical lambs to a militant threat that could not be controlled? In any case, this is a far cry from what the Kashmiri Muslims have claimed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Scholar Mridu Rai; population of Pandits in the valley in 1990

Is it okay to put Mridu Rai's views at the top? As Mridu Rai is not notable. And even she is notable still her views can be included in the article, but not at the top. If her figures are correct, we need some government records about population to back it up. Scholar Mridu Rai argues the higher figures are not credible since the Kashmiri Pandit population was only 160,000-170,000 before 1990 in the Valley.--Marvellous Spider-Man 02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Scholars don't have to be notable. They have to be reliable. I do have some doubts about Mridu Rai's authenticity. Better not to put her at the top. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I'm not the one who took Mridu Rai to the lead, but irrespective of how reliable a scholar Rai is, she is on the positive side here, in this particular context. When she says, the higher figures are not credible since the Kashmiri Pandit population was only 160,000-170,000 before 1990 in the Valley, she has scholarly consensus. Please read the observations of political scientist Alexander Evans (pp 23-26), who studied this matter and these figures in detail. After a comprehensive analysis of all the figures for 3 pages under the section 'How many KPs were in the Kashmir Valley in 1990?', this is what he concludes (on p 26):

Drawing on census evidence, whether extrapolated from 1931/1941 or drawn from 1981/2001, it seems reasonable to assume that there were 160,000–170,000 KPs living in the Kashmir Valley by 1990. This figure is substantiated by detailed census information from 1931 and 1941, and successive post-1947 census operations, and remains credible in the face of unsubstantiated figures proposed by Panun Kashmir and others. The single specific post-1990 measure that is available to us prior to publication of the 2000 census is the number of registered migrants post-1990. It also tallies with the figure of 160,000–170,000.

Regarding the census figures which the other editor asked for, The 1981 census records a total Hindu population of 124,078 in the Kashmir division (the administrative unit of the Valley); 3.96% of the total Valley population. This figure is not of KPs alone, but includes other Hindus living there that year. (Evans p 26) [4] - Here's another source which says that the total population of Hindus & Sikhs in Kashmir valley was 1,57,506, according to 1981 census. The Pandit-population of the valley during 1990 is estimated based on these figures.

On the other hand, the AG Noorani's 800,000 figure for exodus, which is mentioned in the lead, is entirely dubious and surprising! Even Panun Kashmir's site[5] says some 242758 people were registered as refugees after exodus. Their number for the total population of the community itself is 700,000. [6] The highest claim by Hindu organisations for the population figures of Pandits is 700,000 in 1990; 350,000 of whom were living in the Valley. (Evans p 23) [even these 250,000-350,000 figures are refuted by the scholars] I'm still trying to figure out, where Noorani brought that number from, since I saw that in this article, in the lead! — Tyler Durden (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let us get rid of both Noorani and Mridu Rai from the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Is Colonel Tikoo's source reliable?

In 1986, Shah decided to construct a large mosque, Shah Masjid within the premises of an ancient Hindu temple inside the New Civil Secretariat area in Jammu. Many people of Jammu took to streets to protest with large demonstrations and marches against this decision. Gul Shah on his return to Kashmir retaliated and incited the Kashmiri Muslims by saying Islam khatrey mein hey (trans. Islam is in danger). As a result, Kashmiri Pandits were targeted by the Kashmiri Muslims. Many incidents were reported in various areas where Kashmiri Hindus were killed and their properties and temples damaged or destroyed. The worst hit areas were mainly in South Kashmir and Sopore. In Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, Anantnag, Salar and Fatehpur, Muslim mobs plundered or destroyed the properties and temples of Hindus.

References

The content that is quoted above is explicitly taken from the Tikoo's source from Lancer Publishers. But, is that source reliable? My concern is, I have taken the whole content from that section after developing it, to Kashmir conflict also. I thought all of it was well-sourced and reliable. But now as I read several other sources, I don't see these observations in any other good sources like Praveen Swami. The problem is particularly with the Shah Masjid conspiracy, Gul Shah himself raising the slogan of 'Islam is in danger' & even the "many incidents" in places other than Anantnag ('Anantnag riots' is commonly mentioned in all sources) which are "Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, Salar and Fatehpur", where "Muslim mobs plundered or destroyed the properties and temples of Hindus". I think we need to find corroboration from other sources to keep these three things. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More sources here. The India Today coverage seems to be the most balanced one. If there is a Hindu temple in the secretariat, what is the harm in having a mosque too? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but I'm not able to access that India Today source. Anyways, what about these two things?

• Gul Shah on his return to Kashmir retaliated and incited the Kashmiri Muslims by saying Islam khatrey mein hey (trans. Islam is in danger). As a result, Kashmiri Pandits were targeted by the Kashmiri Muslims.
• Many incidents were reported in various areas where Kashmiri Hindus were killed and their properties and temples damaged or destroyed. The worst hit areas were mainly in South Kashmir and Sopore. In Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, [Anantnag], Salar and Fatehpur, Muslim mobs plundered or destroyed the properties and temples of Hindus.

Tyler Durden (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is as far as I am able to see on the India Today source:

Earlier in the year, in a bid to facilitate Friday prayers and prevent Muslim employees of the Secretariat from absconding every Friday afternoon, chief minister G. M. Shah ordered a disused store to be converted into a prayer room. Such a room had been prepared in the Srinagar secretariat without fuss. D. D. Thakur, who was Shah's deputy, said that the decision "could have been avoided", and he would have advised against it had he been in Jammu at the time.

I don't know about Islam being in danger, but there are plenty of sources for attacks on Pandits. This is the best source corroborating. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda?

NadirAli, You wrote "the figures suggested by Pandit expatriates of 3000 to 4000 Pandit deaths are false propaganda. However, no such figures have been mentioned in the article anywhere else. So this is out of context. WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not say "reproduce source". The text you write is your text and it has to make sense on its own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your whole pagragraph

Sanjay Tickoo, who heads the KPSS, states that while it is true that Kashmir Pandits experienced four massacres and intimidation, the claims that Pandits suffered genocide and mass murder are false. He also maintains that while its true that 650 Pandits were killed over two decades, Tickoo notes that the figures suggested by Pandit expatriates of 3000 to 4000 Pandit deaths are "propaganda, which we reject".

References

makes no sense. No "genocide and mass murder" have been mentioned in the article. Are you trying to kill imaginary ghosts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to make sense out of this, so far I could only conclude that it is undue and pretty much replicating what has been already said (eg, 600 deaths estimate). Capitals00 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, not a good objection. Text is properly cited to RS and is WP:DUE. I am more worried about Anmolbhat's extensive collection of POV, consisting of WP:UNDUE repetitions and WP:TERRORIST issues. [7] JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

How it is WP:DUE if same statistics have been already attributed to Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS)? Capitals00 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph added by NadirAli is properly sourced and relevant. It tells us that Pandits have been doing false propaganda which is important information for readers to know. A mountain is being made out of a molehil here. There are more serious issues with the page which NPOV editors can clearly see. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

It was not exactly proper representation of sources. I had modified[8] before it was completely removed. Regarding your understanding about the information, see WP:SOAP. Capitals00 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion and the objections raised have no merit. As pointed out by Dilpa kaur the objections here are simply making a mountain out of a molehill, if not outright red herrings. This is also longstanding content which was removed under a fake edit summary of copyright violation as the copyvio detector shows us,[9] so the text actually turns out to be longstanding content which the admins were tricked into oversighting.

The text Nadir has added (restored) is properly sourced and relevant in aftermath, as part of the aftermath is Pandits doing propaganda. It is definitely much better sourced, written and relevant than Anmolbhat's biased write up which Kautilya3 and Capitals00 are so keen to hold on to. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your copyvio detector only proves that a user on quora.com copied this article but nothing more than that. Capitals00 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

References

POV edits

Anmolbhat your recent massive consensus less edit [10] is totally unacceptable. Again after your block for copyviolation you don't seem to have learned, still violating our copyright policies. Not to mention the numerous POV problems in your very poor write up with the use of mainly unreliable sources. Explain why your edits are acceptable or else ARBIPA penalties for tendentious editing can be very severe. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see this [11]. There is no copyright voilation. And if you think there is some other problem you are free to fix it. Please don't remove text rather you should address talk page before removing anything big. And as your are saying these are unreliable sources then you haven't learned what relaible and unreliable source are. My sources are totally perfect, you are free to investigate them if you want. Anmolbhat (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

JosephusOfJerusalem, Arslan-San, you guys are pompously throwing around allegations without subtantiating anything. Please note that editors have gotten blocked recently for exactly this kind of behaviour. If you want to escape this fate, you need to substantiate. What POV? What copyright violations? Now that the content has been reverted, you need to do this pronto. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Anmolbhat you need consensus to add content as controversial as this. This text suffers from too many neutrality issues. Just look at how many times you have used the word terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST. There is also too much WP:SYNTHESIS which is prohibited. Sources such as Rediff and Indian Defence Review are not WP:RS for content which is as controversial as this. Dilpa kaur (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody needs any consensus to make any edits. So, please quit making this kind of argument. And, what is "controversial" here? You are continuing to throw the same kind of vague allegations as others have done. This is getting tiresome. RegentsPark, can you please give guidance here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dilpa Kaur, the section was not "POV" or "copyright violation". Without even providing the rebuttal you can't dispute the validity of the content. You can replace the forbidden terms but you don't have to support the removal of whole section. Capitals00 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

One needs consensus to restore new controversial material which gets booted out, as you very well now Kautilya3, using the same reason you yourself use.

Now lets take a look at just the first sentence of Anmolbhat's writeup.

On January 04 1990, a Srinagar based newspaper named Aftab, released message issued by a terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahideen in newspaper, threatening all Hindus to leave Kashmir immediately

Now lets take a look at the quality of the sources cited

Rediff: When Kashmiri Pandits fled Islamic terror

Indian Defence Review: Kashmiri Pandits offered three choices by Radical Islamists

Looking at the titles should be obvious enough that these are not acceptable sources. The second article is outright unacceptable for Wikipedia use and the author is a (former) member of the Indian Army which makes him fail WP:INDEPENDENT. The first newspaper is part of the Indian media and Indian media is not reliable on Kashmir conflict related topics as the scholarly sources inform us.

Now lets take a look at the remaining two sources which happen to be decent sources.

Kashmir Ink: PROBE THE EXODUS

Greater Kashmir: On ‘Holocaust’ day, Kashmiris seek probe into Pandit exodus

But these two sources do not support the text.

Both the sources actually says this

On Jan, 04, 1990, a local Urdu newspaper, Aftab, published a press release issued by Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, asking all Pandits to leave the Valley immediately. Al Safa, another local daily repeated the warning. Surprisingly, the outfit did not own the statement and a clarification was accordingly issued. Even if the authenticity of the statement is accepted for the sake of arguments, why did the Pandits wait for a fortnight. It makes no sense that a community that has been threatened with dire consequences stays back for fifteen days and then suddenly decides to flee on January 19.

So this is actually WP:CHERRYPICKING and source misrepresentation by Anmolbhat. Source is saying something else and Anmolbhat is writing something else. Why not write the full information from the source? Obviously because it does not support the author's bias.

If there are so many issues with the first sentence alone, we cannot trust Anmolbhat to have written the rest of the section in adherence to Wikipedia policies. There are numerous issues with the whole section but since I am short on time I have pointed out the problems with just the first sentence as an example. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indian Media

The O'Leary book article doesn't say that Indian media are "unreliable". It only says that they practice self-censorship (i.e., present selective news). This does not preclude using Indian media as sources. Take it to WP:RSN if you want.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Response: The O'Leary Book tells us

In India itself, Bose reports that the media are largely self-censoring with regards to the Kashmir conflict. The main media outlets have made no serious attempt to present a balanced account of the issue. The general coverage is very pro-government. The government is primarily concerned with regulating and limiting the flow of information to the Indian public on the conflict, and media stories critical of government's policies can provoke a serious reaction. One journalist from the Times of India filed a story highlighting abuse of the electoral system in Kashmir-reporting that large numbers of people were forced to vote at gunpoint. As the editors were absent, the story was included in the following day's issue. The journalist was recalled immediately from Kashmir by the paper and then forced to write a follow-up story denying the claims made in the previous piece. Thus, while there is no official censorship, self-censorship combined with occasional government pressure, results in very biased and controlled coverage of the conflict.

To use your words, in short the Indian media is essentially unreliable when it comes to Kashmir. An extensive search of Wiki records reveal that you yourselves have used this same argument when it comes to the Pakistani media on Balochistan. So now be a gentleman and stick to your standard.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, you can take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research

The sources clearly verify the fact that Aftab published a statement on 4 January 1990, which has been billed as a "press release of Hizbul Mujahideen". The fact that the organisation denied it later doesn't mean much. All kinds of agencies issue all kinds of denials. In fact, in January 1990, there were multiple groups operating as "Hizbul Mujahideen". We have no idea which group issued the denial.

All this brandishing doesn't do you any good. And, you should actually read the policy pages that you cite, such as WP:CHERRYPICKING. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Response: I am afraid this comment is opinion, not backed by any reliable sources. It counts as original research, especially these words ″he fact that the organisation denied it later doesn't mean much. All kinds of agencies issue all kinds of denials.″ JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a self-sourced denial. Hardly worth fighting over. Do you have a WP:THIRDPARTY source that verifies that Hizb was not responsible? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are bringing in too much opinion now. You need to stick to the available sources and balance them. There are four sources available for the sentence. Two of them doubt that Hizb was responsible and the other two which do deem them responsible suffer from too many issues such as WP:INDEPENDENT to be accepted as WP:RS. Even if they were, for arguments sake, WP:RS, you would need to WP:BALANCE the various sources which Anmolbhat has not done. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What you call "two sources" are documenting the opinion of the same individual, Sanjay Tikoo, who is only speculating about what might have happened. He is not denying that the newspaper published a "news release" from a "Hizbul Mujahideen" [12]. There were multiple groups calling themselves "Hizbul Mujahideen" prior to June 1990. See for the chaotic history. So, Sanjay Tikoo's speculations are of no consequence. Anmolbhat has written factual information. You are only displaying bombast. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

There is still no decent WP:INDEPENDENT source shown so far which blames Hizbul Mujahideen for issuing such a message. And whether there were many groups calling themselves Hizb is a red herring as the content is not about which group it was but the issuing of a message by Hizbul. Now the reliable sources we have so far do not explicitly blame the Hizb, rather doubt its culpability. So Anmolbhat, who has already overlooked WP:TERRORIST has not managed to WP:BALANCE the descriptions in the sources he has cited. Unfortunatey, Anmolbhat's text after this first sentence is full of similar POV problems. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@JosephusOfJerusalem: my sources are perfect. Media is the one who covers story and they have already reported about these incidents enough. That means you are already able to find WP:RS. It is the case about genocide of Kashmiri Hindus where every source tells the same story (sources under WP:RS) And Sanjay Tickoo's claim that why Hindus stay for fortnight is just an opinion not the reporting. As for 'terrorist' word you can rephrase it. But you don't make any sense with the rest of your rejection. I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur. Anmolbhat (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a yet another reliable source that says the same thing.[13] —MBL ^Talk 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided page number and quote from this ″reliable source″. You will have to present it here for us to work on a version that balances the sources. After we figure out how to properly write the first sentence we will work out the rest of the section. I doubt that even this so-called reliable source will support the 13,000 kb+ of POV content which you have restored. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So far no response has been forthcoming nor is the provided source going to support the 13,000+ kB of POV content. I am restoring the last stable version according to WP:NOCON. It is not allowed to restore a contested version when a talkpage discussion is still going on about the new contested version's POV problems and misrepresentation on facts and sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation of source and you don't have to do WP:STONEWALLING to maintain your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your edit  noted, "Be careful when removing such a large body of sourced text; especially with no or minimal explanation",[14] what was that? Looks like a botched attempt of meat puppetry, because you are the one who was removing "large body of sourced text" with misleading summary. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References