Talk:Article 370 (film)

Bibliography

• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
• Dasgupta, C. (2014) [first published 2002], War and Diplomacy in Kashmir, 1947-48, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-81-321-1795-7
• Mahajan, Mehr Chand (1963), Looking Back: The Autobiography of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Former Chief Justice of India, Asia Publishing House
• Jha, Prem Shankar (1996), Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563766-3 – via archive.org
  • Jha, Prem Shankar (March 1998), "Response (to the reviews of Kashmir 1947: Rival Versions of History)", Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 113–123, doi:10.1080/14662049808447762
• Jha, Prem Shankar (2003), The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-566486-7
• Rizvi, Gowher (1992), "India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Problem", in Raju G. C. Thomas (ed.), Perspectives on Kashmir: the roots of conflict in South Asia, Westview Press, pp. 47–79, ISBN 978-0-8133-8343-9 – via archive.org

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Request to edit is being submitted in order to substantiate on the characters portrayed in the film and their real-life counterparts. As it has been mentioned in the film's disclaimer, the film does not want to bear resemblance to any living person. However, to make it easier for people who did not comprehend the movie, to understand it, the edits need to be made. Xyznwa (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Movie criticism is highlighted in the description - with polical overtones.

the comment about movie being in favor of the ruling party needs to be moved to reviews section. This is nothing but narrative mounding. Wikipedia is better than this. Please update it 73.189.128.83 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal opinion on a movie in Wikipedia is unexpected and downgrades the quality of the page. Please remove. 2603:8001:7EF0:8A30:5C4B:CB0E:F5ED:8BCC (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

These logged-out comments appear to be by the same person. Logged-out editing on controversial articles and their talk pages is discouraged. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sourced content removal

Capitals00, I had added some text which I copied from the source with this edit but you have removed it. Please explain why you did so.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

You have also removed the text, "..... and the storyline," with this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

This (reference no. 14) does say, "for telling a factual story but in a very textbook like way". That source, by the way, was there already; I did not add it.-Haani40 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

I removed the source which clearly doesn't support the content. In fact, I don't find the other two sources supporting either. Somebody seems to have jumped the gun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we remove these pithy made-up summaries, and write a proper section in the body summarising the reviews. I am sure more reviews will be coming through. By the way, movie reviewers are not authorities on the "facts" so that they can claim that the "facts" have been distorted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: So if the text,

.....but criticised the film for its distortion of facts and promotion of the agenda of the ruling government of the Bharatiya Janata Party

is not mentioned in the references cited for it (reference nos. 13&14), you must remove it (that text) - it is not a neutral statement.-Haani40 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

I did some fixing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Indian express said the film "serves its politics unabashedly as it mixes facts with fiction". [1] Koimoi also noted that the movie promotes propaganda. I did little modification to reflect that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yawn. Feature films always mix fact with faction. That doesn't amount to "distortion". But I also don't regard the reviewer's idea of "fact" as being reliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let us take this line, for example:

Mixing facts with fiction, and some convenient untruths, dipping into the right-wing narrative of Jawaharlal Nehru’s “blunders” in Kashmir and Maharaja Hari Singh’s “inclination” towards India,

I know plenty of experts who admit Nehru's "blunders" in Kashmir. Probably 90% of Indians would agree that taking Kashmir to the UN was a blunder. Even Nehru himself might have agreed with it.

As for Mahara's inclination, here is Srinath Raghavan:

Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No it is a false Hindutva claim and ironically the cabinet discussion involved their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee as per his own admission before the matter was referred to the UN. There was no blunder.

Let me know if those make-believe experts you are thinking of, if they cite all these details or they have blindly bought the fringe Hindutva claim just like that Ambedkar opposed 370, and more similarly false claims that we see across the literature of such experts. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00 and Kautilya3: Is there a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP on wikipedia?-Haani40 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

No there is not. You can let me know if you ever find it. Capitals00 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is at least one comment on India's referral to the UN. I can dig up tons, but they are not the main point here.

India had clearly misjudged the politics of the U.N.and came under intense criticism for its obduracy. The delegtates of Syria, the U.S., Britain and Colombia poured scorn on India.

Nehru was the External Affairs minister, in addition to being the Prime Minister. The responsibility for failed foreign policy rests on his shoulders. I am not privy to what happened in the Cabinet meetings, but it is known that Patel was opposed to taking it to the UN.

I am not sure why you are pouring scorn on "Hindutva" here. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says that any Hindutva view is supposed to be automatically dismissed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And, here is Noel-Baker himself:

Nevertheless, it was a "dangerous political miscalculation" on India's part to hope that the Security Council would condemn Pakistan as the aggressor and authorise India to send her troops into Pakistan.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

These points certainly don't have strong basis and has been contradicted by other reliable sources.

India did not bring the issue under Chapter 7 of the Charter because in Indian view nothing could have been gained by exacerbating the issue by asking the UN to condemn Pakistan as an aggressor. The main interest of India was to seek the withdrawal of invaders from Kashmir as soon as possible. [...] On 13 August 1948, the Security Council passed a three-part resolution which called for a ceasefire and asked Pakistan, as aggressor, to withdraw all its forces from those parts of Kashmir which they had occupied while accepting that India could retain part of her troops in Kashmir.

Patel was not opposed to taking Kashmir to the UN. This is yet another false claim circulated in Hindutva discourses contrary to Patel's own statement that expressed his hopelessness over Kashmir war as early as June 1948 that, "our military resources are strained to the uttermost. How long we are to carry on this unfortunate affair, it is difficult to foresee".

Then and now, it is has been frequently noted that UN resolution helped India.

A natural explanation is that Pakistan feared an attack by India and was not willing to accept the UN resolution which gave India the sole right to maintain troops in Kashmir. Pakistan therefore created a puppet army which could remain in Kashmir after Pakistani regulars had withdrawn.

That's why taking to UN was not a blunder and anybody saying it otherwise is only sharing their own view that has no consensus.

Now coming backing to this movie, this is not about the India-Pakistan war of 1948 but Article 370. Hindutva proponents do claim that it was a "blunder" but they offer no evidence for it just like they never highlight that their own Hindutva icon Syama Prasad Mukherjee had also supported 370 at the time when it was being discussed. As such, you need to avoid disputing the fact that this movie is distorting the history. Capitals00 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a debate on Kashmir. The issue here is that a movie producer has taken a position that many other reasonable people, including historians and diplomats take. Is a two-bit movie reviewer in a newspaper supposed to be an authority to sit in judgement and brand it as "fiction"? And are we supposed to accept his/her authority and put it in the lead? That is not the kind of Wikipedia we are supposed to be writing. Complex issues may have many views and many interpretations. Nobody has a final say on it and the right to shout down all the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can observe, Capitals00 has a bias against Hindutva/Hinduism and the BJP and is trying to, "shout down" others. I see multiple warning on his talk page for trying to have "his" way in other articles as well!-Haani40 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

See WP:TPNO. This talk page is only used for discussing improvements to the article, not conduct of any user. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are having problem with this single source then we have more.

• While Modi and right-wing supporters of his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have endorsed the film, critics, especially those from Kashmir, have called it “propaganda” and a “distortion” of historical facts.
• "movie is nothing short of thriller disguised as propaganda, fiction mixed with reality, provides a biased take on a complex issue, lays ground for 2024 general elections..."
• "When you look at it from the perspectives of balance and accuracy, it disappoints. Arguments to preserve the article are given no attention."
• "The word ‘stone-pelter’ is frequently thrown around and accusations of them being ‘paid’ come soon after. But this is, after all, a fictional film as the disclaimer tells you. That is probably why a journalist can fearlessly question the ruling party without any fear of repercussions (India ranked 161 of 180 in 2023 in the Press Freedom Index)."

That's why, noting on the lead that the movie mixes reality with fiction or it distorts history is not any exceptional claim but an accurate statement. Capitals00 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on accession proposals

Right. I notice that you have backtracked from "distortion of facts" to "mixing facts with fiction" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Make a section in the body on Factual accuracy and let us see what you can produce. Avoid claims like X said so and Y said so. Most of these Xs and Ys don't know their head from their tail. And notice that the Sabrang reviewrs actually said, this movie stays clear of overtly false facts or hate speech.."False facts" is an interesting language. Nevertheless, we get what they mean. So, let us see what you can come up with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Read again, I haven't backtracked from "distortion of facts" to "mixing facts with fiction" but suggested either of the two. Now given the above sources, I would be more fine with "distortion of facts" because we have now The Guardian, Al-Jazeera and more high-quality sources to confirm this movie is indeed nothing more than a Hindutva propaganda just like that another propaganda movie The Kashmir Files. You can read the section at Article 370 (film)#Factual accuracy and political messaging. Capitals00 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"Distortion of facts" can only be used only when something widely known to be a fact has been misrepresented. When there are multiple views in the literature, if the movie picks one view that a reviwer doesn't like, that can't be called a "distortion". At best, it is a disagreement. That would be so even if Sumantra Bose and Mridu Rai were to come and express their views. There are facts in the public domain. They can have their views, and others can have theirs. For example, on the issue of the Maharaja wanting to accede and Nehru blocking it, here is what Mahajan says, around 19 September:

I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and I told him the terms on which the Maharaja wanted me to negotiate with India. The Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in the administration of of the State. He, however, wanted the question of administrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in the internal administration of the State and he felt somewhat annoyed when I conveyed to him the Maharaja's views. Pandit Nehru also asked me to see that Sheikh Abdulla was set free.

This amply validates the movie's view. Whether somebody agrees with it or not is a different matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why it is so hard for you to understand? That would be too much of a good thing to believe that that entire world is biased over this movie!

Your source does not prove that accession was delayed by Nehru. There is a huge difference between willingess and intention.[2] It is also ironic that you seek WP:HISTRS for obvious facts but all you have got is this primary source that is ought to be predictably biased and was written 16 years after the accession was already done and not a single secondary source has used this account so far.[3]

Reality is that even on 22 October, when Hari Singh did not offer to sign accession with India but only asked for India's help against Pakistani tribesmen. It took him 3 more days to finally sign accession after he was told that India will provide help only after he acceded.[4] See WP:OR because your own analysis cannot be used for disputing what the sources say. Similary, you don't need to look for a "HISTRS" for simply stating that Hari Singh signed accession after he was already attacked by Pakistani tribesmen because that is already supported by enough scholarly sources.[5][6] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, refrain from personal attacks. You don't seem to have bothered to read the discussion that preceded your entry. Multiple well-reputed WP:SECONDARY sources such as Srinath Raghavan, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta have been cited, and I could also mention Prem Shankar Jha who has the most detailed discussion. The bibliography is at the top of this page, all the books are available are online. So please read them. As a Wikipedia editor participating in a contentious topic, you are committed to WP:NPOV. Please read that page and understand it fully before proceeding. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Misra, A. (2010). India-Pakistan: Coming to Terms. Palgrave Series in Asian Governance. Palgrave Macmillan US. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-230-10978-0. Facing annihilation at the hands of the raiders, the Maharaja signed the Letter of Accession.

trumps the sources I have mentioned? How much space does it even spend on the issues of Kashmir accession in 1947? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? Accusing people of personal attack when none took place is also a WP:NPA. Also, Abhishek0831996 cited not 1 but 3 reliable sources right above. By the time you wrote this message, you didn't cite Raghavan and Dasgupta saying that Hari Singh wanted to sign accession before his kingdom was attacked. You had cited them over a different concern. Capitals00 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Dasgupta's book is apparently not available online. So, here are the relevant extracts:

p.36: The Maharaja appears initially to have toyed with the notion of an independent Kashmir but he soon realised the impracticability of this ambition. By mid-September, he had decided to offer accession to India on condition that he would not be asked to institute immediate reforms or, in other words to hand over power to Sheikh Abdullah. He appointed a new Dewan, Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, and instructed him to secure an agreement with New Delhi on these lines.[4]

p.36-37: Nehru, however, insisted that Abdullah should be immediately released from prison and be associated with the governance of the state. The Prime Minister anticipated that Pakistan would attempt to seize Kashmir by force and was convinced that the Maharaja's forces would be unable to stop the invaders unless a popular resistance were organised. In a letter to Patel on 27 September, he offered the following perceptive assessment:...

The full letter can be found here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"appears initially to have toyed" is itself a mere speculation. In any case, Hari Singh did not offer to sign accession but he was merely looking for a possibility if he can make India agree on his terms. The scholarly consensus on this subject is very firm:

Lowe, V.; Roberts, A.; Welsh, J.; Zaum, D. (2010). The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford University Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-19-161493-4. It was a pro-Pakistan Musim tribal rebellion against Hari Singh in Poonch in late August and September 1947 that led him to sign the treaty of accession with India. [...] On 22 October, they reached Muzaffarabad and began moving towards Uri and Baramula, thirty five miles from Srinagar. With local troops unable to halt the advance, Hari Singh panicked and sought Indian arms and ammunition to pretent being overthrown. Jawaharlal Nehru agreed to do so, but only if Hari Singh formally opted for India. As a result, four days later (on 26 October) Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession...

Jayapalan, N. (2001). Foreign Policy of India. Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. p. 239. ISBN 978-81-7156-898-7. On October 15, 1947, nearly 5000 raiders began the siege of Fort Owen inside Kashmir and by October 22, infiltration and raids were transformed into full scale military upon Kashmir. [...] On 26 October 1947, he signed the Instrument of Accession and made Kashmir a part of India.

This includes Srinath Raghavan too:

Raghavan, Srinath (2018). Fierce Enigmas: A History of the United States in South Asia. Basic Books. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-5416-9881-9. On October 22, 1947 a tribal levy of nearly 5,000 men recruited from the frontier tracts seized key towns in the Kashmir Valley and surged toward Srinagar. Two days later, a beleaguered maharaja formally offered to accede to India and asked Delhi for military assistance.

You are disputing the charge on this movie with regards to distortion of history by citing your own analysis but your analysis is itself inaccurate. Capitals00 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You have ignored the key parts of the quotations I have provided, which I have now highliglighted in bold. Your quotations don't contradict them, nor do they make any claims about the Maharaja's views before 22 October. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hari Singh himself admits that he made the decision to join India only after the conflict against the Pakistani tribal raiders became too serious. He wrote a letter along with the Instrument of Accession and "This letter is a frank statement of Maharaja of Hari Singh's distress and helplessness at that critical moment. He makes it abundantly clear that his intention was for J&K to remain independent, but that circumstances did not permit the realisation of this ambition and that he was being forced to accede to India given the Pakistani violation of the Standstill Agreement and the illegal invasion of his state."[7] Full stop. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this source is relevant to our issues. But it takes the Maharaja's official letter at face value ("frank statement") and ignores all the other facts that historians have unearthed. It can hardly be characterized as a "full stop". It is just one view among many. I am compiling more direct quotes on our issue. Stay tuned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We should be discussing if this movie distorts historical facts and if it really is as per the narrative of the BJP, without any bias.-Haani40 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

That depends on what the reliable sources say. The movie does promote the "narrative of the BJP" by justifying its actions as noted by a number of the reliable sources. That's why it is noted to have been created for the political benefit of the BJP. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

POV claim

This is contrary to the fact that Kashmir ruler Hari Singh had aligned himself with the Indian government only after his kingdom was attacked by the Pakistanis.

References

The first source, Mukund Setlur's review, has these lines:

History has it that Maharajah Harisingh was reluctant to join India or Pakistan. He aligned himself with India only after he was attacked by the Pakistanis. But the makers of '370' want you to believe Nehru delayed the accession until his friend Sheikh Abdullah was allowed power.

There is no mention of which "history" has this. Neither are any qualifications of the reviewer mentioned in the newspaper. There is a claim of "my reivew" on LinkedIn, its author's profile, matching "Mukund Setlur", indicates a specialism in "B2B marketing" (no joke).

After I challenged this source as unreliable, the second source got added which has a one-liner displayed in the quotation. While it is a well-known fact that the Maharaja signed the accession after the invasion, this sentence in no way validates the claims that the Maharaja "aligned" himself with the Indian government "only after" the invasion.

On the contrary, well-established and reputable scholars that studied the history do in fact support what is said to be claimed by the film, viz., that the Maharaja was wanting to accede to India for at least a month before the actual event, and the Indian government rejected the approaches saying that Sheikh Abdullah should be installed in the Kashmir government first.

• Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7

• This is a very hiquality historical work, desribed by reviewers as a "benchmark", "international history at its best" etc. Published in 2010, the book has 281 citations on Google scholar.
• It has about a 50-page chapter on Kashmir 1947-1948 (pp. 101-148) which gives copious citations to archival documents (about 180 of them).

• p.31: By the end of August 1947 the Pakistanis feared Kashmir might join India. To pre-empt this possibility they decided to wrest Kashmir—by force if required.

• p.106: Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct. By mid-September 1947 the maharaja had fired his prime minister, Ram Chandra Kak, who had wanted Kashmir to remain equidistant from India and Pakistan. The new appointee, a judge from the east Punjab high court (later chief justice of India), M.C. Mahajan, met Patel and Nehru, and informed them that the maharaja was willing to accede but wanted political reforms to be deferred. Nehru insisted that Sheikh Abdullah, who was incarcerated by the Kashmir authorities, should be released and that a popular government be immediately installed; only then should Kashmir declare accession to India. On 29 September Sheikh Abdullah was set free.

• p.106-107: Jinnah's private secretary reported from Srinagar that these developments unmistakably pointed towards accession to India. "Muslim Conference is now practically a dead organization." Consequently, Pakistan must resort to force.

• Dasgupta, C. (2014) [first published 2002], War and Diplomacy in Kashmir, 1947-48, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-81-321-1795-7

• This book is written by a senior diplomat, who served as ambassador to China and EU, in addition to a number of other posts. He was honoured with Padma Bhushan. The book, originally published 2002 was republished in 2014 as a "SAGE Classic". It sold out again within a year, requiring a reprinting in 2015. This book also has copious citations to archival documents, mainly from India Office Library in London. It has 140 citations on Google Scholar.
• The book has a section on "The Question of Accession" (pages 36-38), from which I gave two quotes above. I reproduce them here for completeness.

• p.36: The Maharaja appears initially to have toyed with the notion of an independent Kashmir but he soon realised the impracticability of this ambition. By mid-September, he had decided to offer accession to India on condition that he would not be asked to institute immediate reforms or, in other words to hand over power to Sheikh Abdullah. He appointed a new Dewan, Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, and instructed him to secure an agreement with New Delhi on these lines.

• p.36-37: Nehru, however, insisted that Abdullah should be immediately released from prison and be associated with the governance of the state. The Prime Minister anticipated that Pakistan would attempt to seize Kashmir by force and was convinced that the Maharaja's forces would be unable to stop the invaders unless a popular resistance were organised. In a letter to Patel on 27 September, he offered the following perceptive assessment...

• Jha, Prem Shankar (1996), Kashmir, 1947: Rival Versions of History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-563766-3 – via archive.org

• Prem Shankar Jha is an economist and journalist, who served on UNDP and World Bank etc. This book, focusing exclusively on 1947 events, generated such an interest that a conference was held in the US to discuss the new material discovered by Jha. A summary of the discussion was published in the Journal of Commonwealth & Compartive Politics. The main new sources are the British Resident's fortnightly reports from Srinagar, but he also used the correspondences and memoirs published by various players. The book itself has over 200 citations across two editions.
• The book has a chapter titled "Accession Under Duress?" (pages 36-58), where Jha argues that the Maharaja had long been tending towards accession to India. Some of the key indicators.

• At the end of April 1947, he sent the Maharani to Lahore to invite Mehr Chand Mahajan to Srinagar (for a job interview as the prime minister). Mahajan had contacts in Indian National Congress and so would have been well-qualified to negotiate with Congress. Mahajan declined because he was nominated to serve on the Punjab Boundary Commission.
• Soon afterwards, the Maharaja opened a channel of communication with Congress (Vallabhbhai Patel) through a Lahore businessman called Dewan Gopal Das. In August, Gandhi was allowed to visit Kashmir.
• On 25 August, ten days after the Boundary Commission was disbanded (and Mahajan was in East Punjab), Mahajan was invited again. He accepted but couldn't go for a few weeks due to floods. Eventually, the visit happened in mid-September. After returning from Srinagar, he visited Delhi and met Patel and Nehru.
• Around the same time, Sheikh Adbullah was moved from jail to house arrest, and rumours floated in Srinagar that there was going to be a reconciliation. The Pakistan Times published "news" that the Maharaja had decided to accede to India.

• p.36: iv) There is conclusive evidence that, far from anyone in India having plotted to seize Kashmir, it was the Maharaja who first decided, on his own, sometime in September, that he had no option but to accede to India, and Nehru who rebuffed him.

• p.58: Therefore by the end of August he [the Maharaja] decided upon the second best option. Kak [the previous prime minister] had been pushed out a few days earlier so the way was open to start building links with India, on the one hand, and to pave the way an alliance with the National Conference, on the other. On 10 September, Sheikh Abdullah was moved from jail into comfortable house arrest. On 28 September, the Maharaja sent Sheikh Abdullah's letter of rapprochement to Nehru as a token of his good intentions, and on the 29th he set Sheikh Abdullah free, to fly to Delhi a few days later. Far from being a weakling and a dilettante who could not make up his mind... Hari Singh played the only game that was open to a weak ruler when confronted by immeasurably more powerful forces over which he had no control.

Consequently, I claim that this sentence fails WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

In the above discussion, we have already discussed your sources saying "willing to accede" and "appears initially to have toyed" are not verifying your claim that Hari Singh offered accession before October 1947.

I had also cited that Raghavan himself notes that it was in October 1947 that Hari Singh, "maharaja formally offered to accede to India and asked Delhi for military assistance."[8]

Now you are citing Prem Shankar Jha but he blames Hari Singh for the delay by writing on page 40 that, "The main reason why he had delayed so long (and continued to delay till he changed the history of the entire subcontinent) was his aversion to both Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah."

In any case, none of your sources are supporting this movie's claim that "Nehru delayed the accession until his friend Sheikh Abdullah was allowed power." You just seem to be combining some statements to somehow find yourself close to that statement but you are still far from that. Capitals00 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

All three sources say the same thing: Pakistan's assessment that the maharaja would accede to India was correct. By mid-September..." (Raghavan), "By mid-September, he had decided to offer accession to India on condition that he would not be asked to institute immediate reforms..." (Dasgupta), "it was the Maharaja who first decided, on his own, sometime in September, that he had no option but to accede to India..." (Jha). That was a month before the invasion. If Nehru didn't block it by putting the condition of prior political reforms, accession could have happened immediately. Either you are unable to read what the scholars write, or you think the IT professional with the "B2B marketing" expertise is the best authority on the Kashmir dispute. So, which is it?

Instead of the focusing on the Maharaja's decision that happened by mid-September, you want to talk about his "delay". But that "delay" ended by mid-September. So what is the point you are making? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It was not before Pakistan supported tribesmen went close to Srinagar that Hari Singh signed accession. It was Hari Singh who delayed accession as everyone knows. You have been already told that Raghavan says Hari Singh finally offered to sign accession only by October 1947 while Prem Shankar Jha blames Hari Singh for accession. Ultimately none of your sources are supporting the claim of this movie. That's why the tag you have added to dispute the reliability of the source is based on your own analysis, not any evidence. Capitals00 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also noting your sneaky partial revert of Haani40 right here which buried the details about what was shown in the movie. Now you are edit warring to preserve this poor wording and also restoring tags you had placed even when 2/3 of them have been already addressed. Capitals00 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The three sources directly contradict the claim made in the main page, viz., ...the fact that Kashmir ruler Hari Singh had aligned himself with the Indian government only after his kingdom was attacked by the Pakistanis. It is WP:POV (read that page, if you have totally forgotten what it means). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a single source by you is supporting the false claim of this movie "". In fact, 2 of your sources actually disagree with your POV. You havent only forgotten about WP:POV but also WP:V, WP:CON and more relevant policies.

You have been already asked above but you are not answering. Where is your explanation for this sneaky partial restoration of poor wording of Haani40 and your subsequent edit war to preserve it along with these spurious tags even when they have been addressed?

Your recent edit war is senseless.[9] You "who" tag to name the critics is spurious because nobody is going to name gazillions of those critics here. Multiple reliable sources are already there. Your restoration of a source that you believe "fails verification" was removed then why do you have to restore it? Tagging whole section over 1 remaining sentence cannot be tolerated.

You also never notified anybody here about the RSN thread you opened 2 days ago at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Film_review_reliable_for_historical_claims?.

Do you have any explanation for all this or you are just going to repeat yourself? Capitals00 (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Please spare me the lectures, Capitals00. This section has been created to discuss the POV claims made in the section, in particular the faulty historical claim which I have copied above in red. Also shown in green are three scholars that directly contradict what the red sentence says. Are you willing to withdraw the red sentence? If not, are you willing to go for WP:DR? Once this issue is settled, other issues can be resolved easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

It has happened. WP:RSN thread is already there which shall resolve the issue over the Hari Singh sentence. RSN falls under WP:DR.

Until then, you need to address: 1) why you are adding "who" tag to demand the names of the critics when we never do that and the reliable sources are already there to support the sentence. 2) why you are restoring that 2010 book source with "failed verification" tag when I had already removed it? Capitals00 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

RSN is a place to get outside input on an RS issue. There is no guarantee that anybody will provide any. Or even if they do, it is not binding in any way. WP:3O, WP:DRN and WP:RFC are standard methods of DR.

The "who" tag exists because this is a section on factual accuracy, and specific information about accuracies or inaccuracies is needed. This is a contested historical topic and the movie apparently makes historical claims. But no historians or scholars have written anything on it. The two citations you provide have no information about who these critics are. And so as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS they are too weak for inclusion. WP:VNOTSUFF.

I will remove the 2010 book source if you don't want it any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards. The use of noticeboards like RSN falls under DR and raising the same issue at multiple boards is WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

Contested? Which source is disputing the fact that this film does not engage in distortion of history? You are still yet to do proper restoration of that sentence instead of partial restoration of Haani40 wording like you did here. Capitals00 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Instead of indulging in an edit war, why don't you answer the questions? Name the critics and put the page number so that the verification by others Is easy.-Haani40 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

OK, we now have just an, 'unreliable source" tag, so just provide a reliable source for what you are saying here. Then this "dispute" will be resolved. -Haani40 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

There is unanimous consensus that this film has engaged in distortion of history. Do you really want to name every critic here? Attribution is necessary only for contested statements. Nobody denies that this movie hasn't engaged in distortion of history. Capitals00 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is only one, "unreliable source" tag now, so just provide a reliable source for what you are saying here. Then this "dispute" will be resolved.-Haani40 (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

Check the first paragraph of the concerning section. There is unnecessary "who" tag at: " However, the critics have described". Capitals00 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If there is enough evidence of inaccuracies are provided, then the "who" tag can be removed. Right now, the section is making hollow claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you find some sources to dispute the fact that this movie is not spreading disinformation? You have been already told that your own opinion is not enough. Capitals00 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot doubt information from the reliable sources by relying on your own personal views. See WP:OR. Don't add the "who" tag unless you have found reliable sources that verifies that this movie is not distorting history. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You guys have to provide reliable sources as per WP:HISTRS for what you are saying.-Haani40 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav

• I really hope that the edit warring in this article has been sorted out. It really disheartens a general reader, when an article blatantly rejects a neutral POV, especially in such a contentious topic. Smart Sherlock (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Base on true story??

Based on true story?? 2409:40D1:1001:3C7E:215D:2993:C565:364B (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)