Talk:Kashmiris

Architects' Nagas

This is from Fergusson, James (1868), Tree and serpent Worship, or illustrations of mythology and art in India, Allen, pp. 46–47

It is not, however, only in the valley that our Chinese traveller (Xuanzang) repeats the Hindu legends about serpents and their power, but at every stage of his journey from Cabul to Cashmere, he everywhere finds some spot where a dragon king or Naga Raja resided, and played an important part in the legendary history of the land. These legends, as might be expected, were found in the seventh century very much altered from their more primitive forms, but they are interesting, in the first place, as showing how essentially the north-west corner of India was at one time the seat of Serpent Worship, and also, in what manner it was eventually—except perhaps in Cashmere—amalgamated with Buddhism. (p.46)

These accounts by native authorities are fully confirmed by such scanty notices as we glean from classical authorities; Onesicritus tells us that two ambassadors sent to the king of Cashmere by Alexander, brought back news that the king of the country cherished two large serpents of fabulous dimensions. Maximinius of Tyre tells us, that when Alexander entered India, Taxilus (King of Taxila) showed him a serpent of enormous size which he nourished with great care and revered as the image of the god whom the Greek writers, from the similitude of his attributes, called Dionysus or Bacchus. (p.47)

The latest authority we have, is that of Abulfazl, who tells us that in the reign Of Akbar (1556—1605) there were in Cashmere 45 places dedicated to the worship of Siva, 64 to Vishou, 3 to Brahma, and 22 to Durga, but there were 700 places in the valley where there were carved images of snakes which the inhabitants worshipped. (p.47)

All this is fully confirmed by the architecture of the valley; with very few exceptions, all the ancient temples of Cashmere seem to have been devoted to Serpent Worship. They stand in square courts which were capable of being flooded and were crossed by light bridges of stone, some of which still remain. Even at the present day some of these temples are unapproachable without wading, in consequence of the water which surrounds them, and all might be rendered so by a slight repair to their waterworks. There are, of course, no images in the sanctuaries which long prevented antiquaries from perceiving the form of faith to which they were dedicated. But where the deity is a living god and mortal, when he and his worshippers pay the debt of nature, they leave no material trace to recall the memory of their past existence. (p.47)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Hi User:Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your desire to improve the article on Kashmiris. I noticed that you restored a source published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing", whose reliability was questioned at WP:RSN. I replaced information cited to that reference with a more reliable one. Would you mind explaining why you wish to retain the former? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: apologies for the messy editing. This issue has been discussesd before extensively; see Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2. I wrote a propsal, which also treated the Nagas and Pisachas, placing them in context. The sentence you added,

Archaeological findings postulate that the earliest inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley were the Nagas and Pisachas.

References

seems to be too simple in that respect. Your source also says that the accpounts about Nagas and Pischachas are largely legendary; if you quote Shali, you'll have to quote that part too. I'd still prefer my extended proposal, but alas, any serious change to the Origins-sections seems to be impossible... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I actually agree with your edit attributing the statement with respect to Nagas and Pisachas. My main contention was your restoration of content sourced to a single book by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing". What are your thoughts on that? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular thoughts on CSP. Most sources on this tpic are questionable, so the best approach seems to be to balance all of them, with attribution and proper quotes. Otherwise, they'll be merely used for pov-pushing. But the status-quo on this section makes it impossible to do this... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In my edit, you will have noted that I removed the content sourced to "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" per this discussion. The original revision that I supplanted it with is buttressed by ABC-CLIO, an academic press; there are scholarly sources on this topic available and we should use them, I think. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 08:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archives also show that there has been no agreed version for the section since it has been always disputed. I also agree that everything is disputed here and some of the mentioned hypothesis (Jewish and Middle Eastern origins) are completely rejected by every single scholar. You had removed the entire section for this very same reason.[1]  I would support blanking that section entirely as alternative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to get rid of the #Origins section. It is all mythology, either old mythology or new mythology.

Personally, I find Parpola's strong two-wave model of Indo-Aryan migrations as the most satisfying model in explaining all the observed facts. According to it, a first group of Indo-Aryans migrated to the subcontinent as early as 2000 BCE, probably coming through the Hindu Kush mountains, and a second wave of Rigvedic Indo-Aryans came around 1500 BCE via Arachosia. The second wave people probably called the first wave people by names such as "Nagas" and "Pishachas" due to their distinctive customs. But over time, these distinctions disappeared. I don't think the history of Kashmir would have been much different from that of the neighbouring Gandhara. The Buddhist sources club the two together as Gandhara–Kashmira. No special "Origins" need to be proposed for the Kashmiris. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Who were those first Indo-Aryans? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the section as the current version is largely sourced to a reference that fails WP:RS. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Dogra regime

Dilpa kaur, I am not sure why you needed to move Ian Talbot to the opening, as you say here. The Talbot and Singh book that you cite is on the Partition of India, and neither author is a specialist in Kashmir history. Moreover, Chitralekha Zutshi, who does specialise in Kashmir history, has much to say about these matters in her Chapter 2. For instance, note:

In the case of the Kashmir Valley, the office holders were drawn from the ranks of the Hindu clerical caste of Kashmiri Pandits, and a few prominent Kashmiri Muslim Sayyid and Pir families.

It is important to differentiate between the ranks of the bureaucracy, and the Pandit community in general, since the greatest beneficiaries of the system were the wazir-wazarats and the tehsildars. The lower ranks of the bureaucracy, including the patwaris, kardars and shakdars, most likely did not benefit as much from the system as British representations would have one believe. It is important to differentiate between the ranks of the bureaucracy, and the Pandit community in general, since the greatest beneficiaries of the system were the wazir-wazarats and the tehsildars. The lower ranks of the bureaucracy, including the patwaris, kardars and shakdars, most likely did not benefit as much from the system as British representations would have one believe.

The simplistic picture of Muslim masses being oppressed by Hindu elites drawn by the British commentators is a mirror image of the Hindu masses oppressed by Muslim elites that they drew in the rest of India. These were "familiar colonial tropes" as Barbara Metcalf has pointed out elsewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

The history of that text on this article goes back to NadirAli's referral[2] to Fowler&fowler's explanation to you.[3] Perhaps if @Fowler&fowler: has more time he can join us to re-explain to you the importance of this point, and all the other stuff about scholarly surveys etc. The Hindu elite's treatment of Kashmiri Muslims and that treatment's centrality to the Dogra Hindu state is not even a matter of scholarly dispute. As Fowler&fowler has pointed, there is a consensus on it. I am not allowed to debate this as if on a forum. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy-vios?...

@Diannaa: could you take a look at this? It seems to me that this editor does not understand what a copy-vio is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) is well aware that adding lengthy quotes is considered a copyright violation, per WP:COPYQUOTE. This situation[4] is not acceptable for the legal safety of Wikipedia.Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit, I see your point in this particular case. Nevertheless, I suggest you discuss such matters with experienced editors before jumping to conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)