Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)

---

Randhawasingh edits & Density of J&K: 124/km2 (320/sq mi)

@Randhawasingh: Your edit [1] has three problems:

• The population density was more than doubled. Please explain here how you obtained this number.
• "Illegal occupation" etc are WP:LABELs, which are not allowed on Wikipedia.
• This article should only discuss the Jammu and Kashmir state under Indian control, as demarcated by the Line of Control.

So, I am reverting your edit again. You should not reinstate it until consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: There is no discrepancy. These are as per the Official Government of India figures of 2011 census. It is mentioned in official census report that Density of India and J&K excludes the area of 78,114 sq. km. under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5,180 sq. km. Illegally handed over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 sq.km. under the illegal occupation of China in Ladakh district. Source:

http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/censusinfodashboard/stock/profiles/en/IND001_Jammu%20&%20Kashmir.pdf
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Religion_pca/RL-0100.xlsx

Now, area of Jammu Kashmir under Indian control(including entire Siachen Glacier) is 101,387 sq. km, although entire K&K state area claimed by India is 222,236 km2. In this Siacheen Glacier area is approx. 200 km2, where there is no civilian and only army controls thats, which in effect does not bring that area under the administration of J&K state government.
Density= Total population/Total area (Formula used)
J&K state population under Indian control(excluding Siachen glacier) approx . stands at 101,140 sq. km
The revised population of J&K state released by Govt. of India on 25 August 2015 was 12,541,302
Density of J&K therefore was 12,541,302/101,140 = 124/km2
Similar exclusion of POK and Aksai Chin area was done for Indian density which was pegged at 385.8/km2 --Randhwasingh (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you can change the numbers. Note that you should not make the edit until you are sure that the agreement is reached. (It is not ok to reinstate edit as soon as you have "explained".) As a matter of fact, you have ignored my other two points. Your reinstated edit continues to state the Indian government POV about excluding "illegally occupied areas" etc. So I am reverting again. Please change the numbers, not the wording. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: , Since this article is mainly inclined heavily towards Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir state , you have to give density for that area only. Also, since 1998 census, no census has taken place in Pakistan. There is no way to get updated census figures for Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, Saksgham valley and Aksai Chin. So its ok to mention density of J&K state for the Indian-administered area only. --Randhwasingh (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever asked you to provide the figures for the formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. So I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, I have now deleted the offending statements. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How is density of J&K as 56/km2 (150/sq mi) correct? Where is the source?

@Kautilya3: , How is density of J&K as 56/km2 (150/sq mi) correct? Where is the source? How it is calculated? Is this calculated taken into account the population of G-B, Azad Kashmir ,Shakshgam Valley and Aksai Chin into account? Please elaborate.--Randhwasingh (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131108054536/http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2471&Itemid=2 to http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2471&Itemid=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC) the population of the cities of jammu and kashmir is not as per the census figures, the population of jammu city is around 5 lacs and srinagar around 11 lacs, where as the population of jammu district is 15 lacs, whereas the population of the srinagar is 12 lacs

The standard map

The map that Ljgua124 replaced with is hardly the 'standard'. It represents a a biased POV. Why should the part of Kashmir that India claims and controls be shown in stripes? I see none of that at the Azad Kashmir and Xinjiang article, where they're shown as integral parts. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Presumably because India objects maps that don't show the whole of the princely state as being part of itself. On the other hand, we prefer to show the de facto situation. So this is a compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

Reverted this being not in the source given.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over map

Note this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Edit warring and no discussion is not acceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan in 1941?

Kuatliya, Ref this, where you POVed by changing the text to "Pakistan-controlled territories" from simple NPOV text of "Pakistani territories" and also changed the generic text "it was expected" to "many people in Pakistan expected" by giving a vague edit summary: "Reverting some vandalism and some minor updates", please explain how can Pakistanis "expect (as early as) 1941 that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan" when there was no Pakistan in 1941? There was a reason that the original statement said "it was expected" instead of specifying "who". Partition of Indian was accepted by the British in 3rd June Plan (1947), not in 1941. BTW, you also pushed POV when you changed the text to "Pakistan-controlled" instead of "Pakistan-administered" against WP:NPOV. Then you again reverted to the same text despite the understanding that Pakistan came into being in 1947 and not 1941. How can Pakistanis expect something when there was no Pakistan?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

How about a compromise, and rewriting the text to "Muslims expected that.." rather than "many people in Pakistan expected that..". As it is dealing with Muslim aspirations, but prior to the partition. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That's workable, as, ofcourse Muslims could have expected this, but saying it were Pakistanis is totally a different thing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

TripWire reverts

TripWire deleted content [2] with the edit summary There was no Pakistan in 1941 when census was held. The sentence is about "Partition Logic" not the people. After reinstating the content saying that it wasn't dealing with the events in "1941," deleted it again [3], claiming There was no Pakistan either in 1941. Site your source which says "Pakistanis" expected in "1941" that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan.

Dear TripWire, citing 1941 census data doesn't mean that we are stuck in 1941 forever. We are talking about events in 1947. As for sources that says "Pakistanis expected Kashmir will form part of Pakistan," here are a few:

• Senior Pakistanis, many of whom had once naively simply expected that J&K would join Pakistan, had come to believe that India had been deliberately conniving with Hari Singh to obtain J&K's accession.
• Because of its over all Muslim majoirty, and, closer communication links with areas that were to be part of Pakistan, the Muslim League expected the State to join Pakistan and even offered some inducements to the Maharaja to influence his decision.
• Pakistan naturally expected Kashmir, with its Muslim majority, to join it. India thought that the religious factor was irrelevant, especially since the leading political party, the National Conference, was known to be non-sectarian. By early October, as Patel wrote to Nehru, there was no ‘difference between you and me on matters of policy relating to Kashmir’: both wanted accession.
• Although Jinnah (falsely) believed that J&K would fall into Pakistan's `lap like a ripe fruit' once the Maharaja realized his and the people's interests and acceded to Pakistan,[123] and although he was prepared to allow the Maharaja's `autocratic government' to continue,[124] support for independence enabled pro-Pakistan forces to woo the decision maker rather than the people.
• According to chaudhri Muhammad Ali, Jinnah used to say, "Kashmir will fall into our laps like a ripe fruit."

Your edit changing the sentence to it was expected is wholly unsatisfactory. Pakistan expected. India didn't. You can't write it as if it is a universal truth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you didnt read the discussion above. Please go through Mar4d's suggestion. As he and I have pointed out, Muslims saying or expecting one thing does not automatically equate it with what Pakistanis would have expected as, per commonsense, Muslims/Indians before the partition were not referred to as Pakistanis, your source above precisely support what I have been suggesting. Nowhere does any of the source given by you say that it was the Pakistanis who were expecting Kashmir to fall into their lap, rather Muslims of India expected this. It's really not that hard to understand this, especially when no one called them Pakistanis before the partition actually took place.

BTW, I didnt "delete content", rather restored what was deleted by you.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I didn't read the earlier section when I opened my section. The discussion above is wholly irrelevant. The text is not talking about 1941. It would be silly to do so anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

References