User talk:Tyler Durden

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

1947 Jammu massacres

Hi Vamsee, I am sorry but you addition to the 1947 Jammu massacres page is in the nature of a badly written blog-post. Wikipedia is not the place for engaging in such WP:OR. I am giving you an ARBIPA alert. Repeated POV-pushing of this kind will be grounds for sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me how is mentioning the 'Poonch rebellion' and its occurrings from scholarly sources in the article POV pushing? This is a sincere question, not an argument. Thank you. Vamsee614 (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You need a WP:RS (in this case WP:HISTRS) that makes the connection between the two. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1947 Poonch Rebellion

Hi, I'm I.am.a.qwerty. Vamsee614, thanks for creating 1947 Poonch Rebellion!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this article, it looks fairly detailed. But please note, i has been tagged as having no sources. Please add some sources to ensure the article will not be contested for deletion.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vamsee614, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to 1947 Poonch Rebellion have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Since I was documenting the same content into a necessary and detailed document, I copy pasted from one article to another. As I can see, one can copy paste within the Wikipedia after giving attribution in the edit summary. You cannot delete the page altogether for that! - Vamsee614 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You say that it is mostly copied from Azad Kashmir, but there is no separation between what has been copied and what has been added anew. This is a problem. The two sorts of content should have been added separately. Other problems include, incomplete citations (especially when the words from a source have been copied, but the author is not even mentioned!), inadequate attributions (e.g., the Government of Jammu & Kashmir's words used as if they are facts), and no attention to WP:HISTRS requirements for historical information. Worst of all, it is not WP:NPOV, despite the fact that NPOV content exists in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page and I have pointed you to it. Can you explain why you didn't use it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have created the article just then. I know it is still in a beginning stage and has to be yet developed a lot. But that doesn't mean a page of considerable importance, instead of having necessary modifications, had to be deleted entirely. That was only the first step. I'll use the NPOV content from that page in the next stages. You can provide your valuable inputs & corrections and help with your suggestions. Thank you. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why it is that important. It is part of the First Kashmir War and it has been covered there. It is not as if we have such a great deal of reliable information about it that it needs a separate article. All that exists is POV, and this qualifies as a WP:POV fork. Your first draft was certainly not ready for public consumption. Such drafts should be created in your sandbox and developed cleanly before being put into the main space. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir conflict

Hi Vamsee614. Please note that there are additional restrictions in place on articles related to the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, an area in which you appear to be editing quite a bit. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan. This is merely FYI and does not imply that your edits are problematic. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Problematic editing at 1947 Poonch Rebellion

In this edit, you have attributed the mention of "evilly disposed persons" to Christopher Snedden. However Snedden says:

A press note issued on 12 September by the J&K Government confirms this campaign: ‘Early in August in ... Poonch Jagir, evilly disposed persons launched a violent agitation against the administration of the jagir in favour of civil disobedience and No Tax Campaign’.

Your edit is a misrepresentation of the source.

At the same time, you are very particular about dates and attributions in this edit. And, you claim that this is a "different point of view". It is a first hand assessment by the Assistant British High Commissioner, who had eyes and ears all over Pakistan, which was teeming with British officers and reporters everywhere. What is your justification for calling it a "point of view"?

Thirdly, where is the justification for stating that he said it "as the state was in an unusual quiet"? Is there any causation or explanation given in the source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1st - It was my genuine mistake. I didn't read the source properly. I just tried to resolve the 'according to?' tag. However I wasn't pushing anything, either in the content, or regarding who said it. There is no problem if that content is present or not.

2nd - I was referring to the use of phrase 'On the other hand' in the line, as the previous lines in that para are saying about the violent happenings of the revolt by Muslim Conference and other sources. It seemed odd to me, switching suddenly to this line in the same para, without using that phrase. So I said it is a report that is 'different' from the previous ones. "The state is in an uneasy quiet" is a certain assessment, but "the Poonch affair... was greatly exaggerated" appears like an opinion/viewpoint, though it may be completely valid. Hence I called it so in edit comment. Anyway nothing serious about this also. I was particular about the date in September, because in the next month Hari Singh literally lost control over a portion of the region.

3rd - I felt it is obvious that he said that the affair is exaggerated because he saw that the state was just in an uneasy quiet. Again, I may be wrong. And I am sorry.

In this edit also, I thought, by "chieftains", the author just meant the rebels. So I said it is fine without adding the names of the rebels.

Please don't attack me so much bro! — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi Vamsee, you need to urgently review talk page etiquette described at HELP:Talk and WP:TALK.

Talk page posts should be concise and to the point so that any interested editor can review the discussion and understand what is being discussed. You should also avoid WP:FORUM kind of arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What in particular are you referring to? — Vamsee614 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Kashmir constituent assembly

Hi Vamsee, the Kashmir constituent assembly was formed in order to formulate the state's internal constitution. It did not have the power to either confirm or abrogate the accession. Dilip Hiro's wording is wrong. He is a journalist, not a WP:HISTRS. Bakshi might have claimed things, but they have no legal validity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I didn't know. "The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India and adopted a constitution for the state that called for a perpetual merger of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India. India claims that the Constituent assembly lawfully represented wish of Kashmiri people, and that its views were those of the Kashmiri people at the time." — but then, what does these lines in the article mean? Don't they carry any weight? — Vamsee614 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I'm very much confused here.

"Finally, this Assembly will after full consideration of the three alternatives that I shall state later, declare its reasoned conclusion regarding accession. This will help us to canalize our energies resolutely and with greater zeal in directions in which we have already started moving for the social and economic advancement of our country." - from the speech of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah when he first addressed the Constituent Assembly, on 31 October 1951.

According to Alastair Lamb (Kashmir a Disputed Legacy, 1846-1990, pg 193), the objective of constituent assembly “to determine the future shape and affiliation of State of J&K” appeared to conflict with the resolutions of Security Council, which was also endeavoring in rather different ways to decide on the future of the State, a question which it considered to be still subjudice. “Jawaharlal Nehru also saw advantage in the constituent assembly, as it would reinforce the argument that Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference really did represent the Will of the people of J&K and the election to which it gave rise could be presented to the world opinion as a substitute for a plebiscite…,” Lamb says, and adds; “It was evident that the constituent would take its time in the production of a definitive document. Meanwhile given the Indian diplomatic emphasis, which was being placed on its proceedings, Nehru soon concluded that it would be as well to obtain from Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, some interim based definition of the kind of relationship between the Indian Union and the State of J&K that would in due course emerge. Above all it would be extremely useful to have the ambiguities of the interpretation of the word ‘accession’ which we have just noted, clarified….” He also writes that : “It was with the aforesaid objective that Govt. of India requested the then Kashmiri leaders to come to Delhi for discussion. Accordingly a Kashmiri delegation, headed by Mirza Afzal Beg, including D.P.Dhar and Mir Qasim arrived in New Delhi on 17.06.1952 and immediately started discussions with Nehru. A month later on 17th July, Sheikh Abdullah joined in the talks along with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, G.M. Sadiq and Moulana Syed Masoodi, which also included a number of politicians representing the opposition parties. The result was an agreement between Sheikh Abdullah’s faction and Jawaharlal Nehru, reached on 24th July, often referred to as the ‘Delhi Agreement’, which Sheikh Abdullah outlined in Srinagar to the J&K Constituent Assembly on 11.08.1952.”

— Vamsee614 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For legal questions, we need to refer to Noorani and Hingorani, both of whom are legal experts. Noorani's "Article 370", published by Oxford University Press, is the best souce for this.

• India accepted the accession "provisionally", subject to determining the will of the people.
• After India took the matter to the UN, determining the will of the people became a UN responsibility.
• India had argued with both the UNCIP and Dixon, that elections to a constituent assembly can be used for determining the will of the people. UNCIP was open to the idea, but Dixon ruled it out saying that the numerous references made by India to a "plebiscite" (including its statements in the White Paper) amount to a firm commitment to a plebiscite. India could not go back on it, in his view. He is a juror, and his position has a lot of weight.
• India agreed to holding a plebiscite in the Valley, and was prepared to lose it. See Noorani's Dixon Plan, which is an excellent commentary.
• When Sheikh Abdullah decided to elect a constituent assembly, the UN made it clear that its decisions would not be binding. Nehru reassured the UN that the constituent assembly would only be empowered to decide the internal constitution, not the matter of accession.
• When Sheikh Abdullah was dismissed, one theory for why he was dismissed is that he was overstepping the remit of the constituent assembly.
• Sheikh Abdullah may have been popular in the Valley, but his democratic credentials are practically zero. The so-called Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly election, 1951 was a complete farce.
• The Constitutent Assembly's words "the State has been and continues to be an integral part of the Indian Union" is an observation of the de facto situation (which would still be regarded as provisional by Noorani and co), but it is not a decision of any kind. After Abdullah's dismissal, the constituent assembly had lost whatever little legitimacy it might have had. No sane person in the world would accept that the rump constituent assembly had any mandate to decide anything.
• Bottom line: Since 1954, India has been delusional. It believes that it can wiggle out of the plebiscite promise. But time will tell that it cannot. Owais Khursheed is right. Since 1953, India knew that it would lose a plebiscite in the Valley. Its continued efforts to hold the Valley by brute force represent an utter hypocrisy. The longer it delays the harder it will get to face the music. "Kashmir is slipping away from India" said an informed commentator [1], long before the present unrest. India refuses to see the writing on the wall. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't expect to hear these words from you bro. :-) — Vamsee614 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I fight propaganda of all kinds. And, Indian propaganda is no exception. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Why is there no separate article on Dixon Plan (or any others) to elaborate on the proposed solutions to the Kashmir Conflict? Israeli-Palestinian conflict has three such articles (Two-state solution, One-state solution & Three-state solution) while Kashmir conflict has none! — Vamsee614 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I think Dixon Plan does deserve its own article. Mind you that this whole attention to the Dixon Plan is rather new. Even Victoria Schofield was quite vague about what Dixon had proposed. My section in the Kashmir conflict is the first time this has been written about on Wikipedia. Even otherwise, it appears that there were two Dixon Plans, one proposing a zonal plebiscite and the other a partition-cum-plebiscite. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks to you for that. So let us start building the content for the article. — Vamsee614 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

1947 Poonch Rebellion

Ok, I am going offline now. Probably won't have much time for the rest of the day. You can work on the problems I flagged. You also need to think about the timeline carefully. Recall the August-September-October activity that I have described previously. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thank you. When you come online, please don't forget to reply here. — Vamsee614 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If you send me an email message via my User page (check the menus at the top), I can send you a copy of the Shuja Nawaz article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I did, please check. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Indian military sources, such as Bhattacharya, are not WP:HISTRS. They should be used with caution, either for bare facts or for providing additional detail to facts already covered from HISTRS. The same goes for Pakistani military sources and for Muslim Conference sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Please remember that you are supposed to write Wikipedia content in your own words. WP:Close paraphrasing is disallowed. When a source uses a characteristic turn of phrase, like "snuffed out", you can't use it. Or, if it is being attributed, you can put it in quotes. Snedden's style of citing sources and putting quote marks around phrases is not particularly good. As you know, you have yourself gotten confused about how to interpret them. We have to be explicit about attributions.

Also, words like "Maharaja sent his Dogra army" are not NPOV. They are apparently taken from POV sources that want to attack the Maharaja. If you wrote them yourself, that would be even worse. The right thing to say here is "the State Army". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Thanks, will follow that from next time. I was being too lazy.

2. This I know bro. I thought I changed that line, how did I even miss this! Why didn't you change it? The present version is written directly from the source (Nawaz pg 119). And the words are actually poorer than you saw - "The Maharaja sent his Hindu Dogra forces to quell the unrest." I'm changing it immediately. — Vamsee614 (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

You shouldn't edit war. Since the other user has initiated a talk page discussion, that is where the action should be. Try citing policies rather than your opinions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I did't know that he messaged on talk page. I don't get alerts when someone posts in the talk pages I follow. And did you see his edits? What should I tell him? I already told, that was POV pushing and removal of relevant & well-sourced data. — Vamsee614 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I need your help in there. — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Did I utter a word against him in my previous message? And look at the way he's talking today. What can anyone tell to a guy who attacks people personally on Wikipedia? — Vamsee614 (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

POV pushing

Hi Vamsee, this kind of edit and edit summary are not on. This is what we call POV pushing on Wikipedia. What do you mean by "let us please be reliable"?

The material you were modifying is sourced to Ian Copland, a far more reliable scholar than Snedden. I have been telling you for almost a month now that Snedden is biased.

And, what exactly are you saying? If somebody agitates about taxes, you give them guns and get them to shoot people? That is the law of your land? You expect Wikipedia to endorse that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh! So because of that, in the main article, you simply want to hide the fact that Poonchis were agitating against Maharaja and supporting Pakistan since before? And what for? Because Pakistan was unfair? I never denied that. But what if Pakistan was unfair? And what if Snedden was a biased source? All that doesn't alter the truth of the information that I wrote. 'Law of the land' in Jammu during partition? Seriously? And why did the law of my land come into picture? Sincerely, may I please know why? By the way, for your kind information, my government isn't communal, and it doesn't oppress me & use brute force on me if I agitate for taxes. And in my land, the law allows me to bring down the administration with my vote if I have a problem with it. I'm sorry, but contrary to your thinking, that was not the picture in Poonch. Anyway that doesn't matter at all. The present content in the article purely suggests that the Muslim League agents were the reason behind any primary disturbance in Poonch, which is clearly deceiving. All you have in your defense is "Snedden is a biased source". But even Ian Copland tells exactly the same story. There is absolutely no source that even leaves a benefit of doubt that Pakistan encouraged people of Poonch to rebel before the 'No Tax' campaign in June. Poonchis wanted to be out of Hari Singh's kingdom since 1930s for that matter, so, was Pakistan encouraging them during then? And we are not at all presenting/implying that the reason for Pakistan's encouragement was the 'No Tax' campaign or any of Poonchi's troubles. That line - "Faced with the Maharaja's indecision[...]" - perfectly states that Pakistani administration started to conspire - because it saw Hari Singh was not acceding to Pakistan, after its attempts persuade him to do so through several means of lobbying. I can produce you multiple sources which all observe the same regarding the first cause for the rebellion and when it was initiated. You also know that. But sadly, I see you don't want it there because you are just not comfortable with it. But I don't like/expect Wikipedia to hide that information in the main article. And I really wish not to see any people anymore, who say that one side (Indian side) is trying to cover that truth. Also it is against the fundamental values of Wikipedia. I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous! Can you show me a single endorsement in the words I added? I request you, at least, try not to lose your cool. That information definitely needs to be in there. Think over, calmly and sensibly. — Vamsee614 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you need to read and understand WP:DUE, which is a lot harder principle to master than you imagine. And, you also need to keep a certain amount of distance from the subject in order to determine the due weight to be given to issues. In my opinion, Copland is the most neutral scholar on the subject, and his subject isn't just Kashmir, but all princely states. That gives him a breadth of perspective which the other scholars lack. Snedden simply hasn't considered all the evidence that Copland presented. He probably never even read the Copland article. He certainly doesn't cite it.

It is not clear whether you read the Copland article either. So, your accusation that we aren't being "reliable" in writing that paragraph doesn't hold any water. The first thing for you to do is to read the Copland article and check if the paragraph is a faithful summary of it. Please do that first, and then we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree with the present content in the article, after this edit? — Vamsee614 (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced to Copland only. — Vamsee614 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The form of what you have written is better. But it still comes across as a rationalisation of Pakistan's actions (in a section titled "India-Pakistan conflict"). I still have to think about how to balance it properly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• (ec) And notice how Copland cautions against making "snap judgements":

However, the mere fact that the two sides could arrive at such contradictory interpretations of the Kashmiris' behaviour should serve to alert us to the danger of making snap judgements about mass movements, and in truth the little that is known about the origin and spread of these particular movements suggests that they were as much concerned with local grievances (over taxes and prices) and the defence of hearth and family (against the Darbar's Dogras or marauding war-bands) as with the larger constitutional issue of accession.[122: conversation between HC India and Maj. Gen. Scott, dated 8 October 1947, IOR L/P&S/13/1845B]

I notice that Copland had written about the Muslim League in one paper and the Poonch revolt in another, and he doesn't seem to have brought the two together. So, we don't know how he sees the balance of the forces. Based on evidence, we have heard that even the Bagh incident was due to an incitement by 30 Sattis that had infiltrated. So, even that wasn't purely indigenous.

We know that the Poonchis were unhappy with the Maharaja and they were agitating against taxes. This doesn't prove that they were against Kashmir remaining independent. If a political dialogue had happened, they might have been ok with it. Also interesting is the absence of Sardar Ibrahim in all of this. He was their elected representative in the Praja Sabha. It would have been his job to initiate the political dialogue. Yet, he is nowhere in the picture. How do you explain that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I'm actually losing track of what exactly we are missing in this whole discussion. Nobody is judging or rationalizing anything here. All we are supposed to do is inform things as they are and not hide anything that needs to be informed, and we shall do it without fail. I'm not sure how you're expecting Sardar Ibrahim to initiate a political dialogue with Hari Singh to keep Kashmir independent, when he was openly advocating joining Pakistan. His party officially declared (on 19 July) a resolution in favour of accession to Pakistan with internal autonomy. It drew support from the local folklore and by Independence Day (Aug 15) many people were raising Pakistan flags all over. And this, was purely indigenous. 30 Satti infiltrators came at the end of August. Every source tells that the first people from Pakistan at the same period (end of August). Also Sardar was clearly a strong supporter of joining Pakistan at the time, he had no interest in any political dialogue for independence. His party and himself had publicly dropped support (if any) they had for independence (with Maharaja as the constitutional head) after people's unhappiness with Hari Singh broke again and agitation began against him for oppressive taxation around June. And the most sensible (and scholarly) assessment is Sardar and his party, who were quite among locals, took advantage of the anti Maharaja situation (his forces were literally burning villages by August to suppress opposition) at the time and turned it into a pro Pakistan situation, for their campaign. And many people bought into this urge. Also it is not any new to them, they themselves wanted to get rid of Hari Singh and join Punjab province since 1930s (the cause which also had INC's and NC's support, and there were no any Pakistani agents then). Now Pakistan, facilitated by these happenings in Poonch, accelerated its mischievous plans to liberate Kashmir from Maharaja and take it using force, when they saw diplomacy with Maharaja is failing - I'm not the one who is inventing this, it is observed by neutral and reliable scholarly sources also. Moreover Muslim Conference was writing letters to Pakistan, asking to act immediately, when Hari Singh appointed a pro Indian PM and gave signs to accede to India. The entire Poonch affair did very much provide the excitement for Pakistan's goof-ups. All in all, in my opinion, merely informing that Pakistan's mischievous actions were facilitated by the previous situation of anti Maharaja and pro Pakistan in Poonch, is not at all undue. Any sane person will agree to that. Being a 21 year old and an amateur in Wikipedia, even I understand that. In fact I wonder how no one informed that since so many years, despite the continual propaganda by one side (to justify their deeds) that India is withholding this information. — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

References