From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Kashmir at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.


jammu kashmir? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please search for "name" in the archives of this talk page for past discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
IP, Jammu and Kashmir is here, in case you want to read about it. cheers. --DBigXray 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan administered Kashmir AfD[edit]

A deletion discussion open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir may be of interest to people who have this page on their watchlist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I know it was probably meant well but I just reverted the addition of the infobox at the Kashmir article because it will likely lead to yet more nationalist edit warring in a contentious topic area. Infoboxes act as honeypots for people who often don't even read the article and so distort the contents, which of course is a big problem for such areas. Infoboxes are not compulsory things and we already have a special sanctions regime in place due to the extent of nationalist etc issues relating to such articles, so it seems daft to invite trouble. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • A very unfortunate revert from a fellow editor. Infobox is not compulsory as per your personal suggestion, but it is an important part of the article on WP. It provides a brief summary and facts regarding the subject. Its your personal point of view that it will start edit warring and create problems, does that mean we stop improving the article? You need to find a better reason.  MehrajMir (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it is your opinion that one is needed just as much as it is mine that it may cause problems. Stop being so aggressive and talk it through sensibly. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For what (if anything) it may be worth, three people have thanked me for that edit and one person has queried whether I meant to do it. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 Sitush: I was the one who queried, but at that point I didn't know that the infobox had been only very recently added to the article. I then figured out that this article (in which I have made more than a few edits, had mysteriously gone from my watchlist. I agree with Sitush. There is no need for an infobox especially in an article that has a map and three representative pictures, one in each region of control, in this long-disputed land. Please also see my post on WT:INDIA about why non-English scripts should not be allowed on the Kashmir page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for providing the explanation. I'm not aware about the thread on INB. I will now leave it to others if they want to include an infobox.  MehrajMir (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that infobox should be still retained. Other similar regions like Kurdistan, Baltistan, also have infoboxes and it does not appears that it is causing problem there. We should try having an infobox here for now and see how it goes. How does this sounds? (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. This a long-standing article with special standards. The other articles you mention are not in this league. My worry right now is that some editors such as King Zebu have added text directly to the lead, in particular, the third paragraph, which does not represent a summary of the lead. I won't revert it now, but will rewrite it in a few days. In particular, their edits violate a long-standing understanding about this page that it is a historical article about the Kashmir region up to 1948-49. What happened in this region after 1949 belongs in detail to other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone, I was just looking at other articles of territorial disputes, everyone has an infobox including those of disputed islands. Most importantly it's sibling Kashmir conflict (the most volatile of the two) has got a huge infobox. I can't see any special exception here. MehrajMir (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This page is not about a territorial dispute, in which the text can be graphically and cognitively simplified by listing the names of the belligerents and putting emojis for their flags. This page is about the region. It was modeled on the Britannica page, Kashmir region, which is about the geography, the historical demographics and the history until 1948-49, which doesn't really describes the conflict except very briefly the antecedents in the 1950s. The infobox in Kashmir conflict was added without discussion by a drive-by named Wareditor2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at 12:15 on 29th May 2013 in this edit with edit summary, "Added Conflict Info box, removed previous box," except that there wasn't any previous box, just an image. That edit was immediately reverted by editor Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), now blocked, at 12:29 on 29th May 2013, with edit summary, "(Reverted good faith edits by Wareditor2013 (talk): Per WP:BOLD. Let's discuss. This is a controversial article, kindly take caution before altering lead among other things.)" That edit was soon reverted by another blocked editor, Faizan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), in this edit at 13:29 29th May 2013, with edit summary, "(Reverted to revision 557337907 by Wareditor2013: restored better revision. Whats wrong with the infobox? Why prefering a sole territory?. (TW))" In other words, the infobox was added in a back and forth between one drive-by and two blocked editors, in mid-2013 as a result of a discussion that will not stand up to any WP guidelines-related scrutiny. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Muslim POV[edit]

For almost a century until the census, a small Hindu elite had ruled over a vast and impoverished Muslim peasantry.

The sentence above is a textbook example of British divide and rule propaganda. It makes a feudal exploitation look like a communal Hindu vs Muslim issue. This is typical of British polemics who do propaganda against the Dogra rulers to support the Pakistani agenda. Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh are not experts on Kashmir. They should not be cited anywhere on this article. Perhaps Sumantra Bose can be cited but then his opinion should be attributed to him per WP:CLAIM. (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pandits constituted in their efflorescence no more than 4% of the population of the valley. They were favored by the ruling Dogras. As a result, though there were some poor Pandits, most managed to live comfortably in contrast to the Muslim peasants, who were the wretched of the Kashmir earth. Unfortunately in the period 1846 to 1947 that was no the Muslim point of view (POV). Had awareness of exploitation been a part of the Musim point of view in the 1850s, the Dogras would have long gone by 1947 and today there would have been no conflict. The Muslim peasants were too timid in those days. Oh, but you are looking for references. Talbot and Singh are fine. They are experts on the partition, so they would know about Kashmir in the period before and after 1947. There are many other sources. Sumantra Bose, by the way, is no expert on Kashmir. He was merely looking to use Kashmir as the guinea pig for his political solutions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It still requires attribution. Because there is no proof that such a POV represents the scholarly consensus.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Pandits were Brahmins. They were naturally going to comprise most of elite, as was the case in most Indian societies of the time. They had an elite status in Kashmir even under Afghan and Muslim rule. Ian Talbot and Gurharpal Singh have conveniently overlooked that latter fact when they claim the Hindu elite "established" a stratified society. So I am inclined to regard it as a biased source. You will need to add an attribution.
I am also sure you can find other sources which parrot the same POV. But they will need to be filtered to see if they have done a proper scholarly inquiry. They will have to have taken the history of Kashmir and Pandits into context. There are also many sources showing the position of Muslims was improving in 1931.
Ian Copland. “Islam and Political Mobilization in Kashmir, 1931-34.” Pacific Affairs, vol. 54, no. 2, 1981, pp. 228–259.

one must admit that the overall position of the Muslim community was no worse in 1931 than it had been at the beginning of Hari Singh's reign. Indeed, in some respects it was arguably better

Hari Singh was introducing democratic reforms. It wasn't perfect I grant you but Muslim representation was gradually, even if slowly, improving. Compare that to its contemporary, Hyderabad, which actively avoided democracy to keep the Hindus out. Kashmiris had it a lot better. To be neutral the article needs to indicate the "Hindu" Hari Singh's benevolence to the Muslim peasants. (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your post. Some of your concerns are in fact mentioned, albeit tersely, in, "Driven into docility by chronic indebtedness to landlords and moneylenders, having no education besides, nor awareness of rights,[56] the Muslim peasants had no political representation until the 1930s."[60] 56=Sumantra Bose; 60 =Talbot & Singh. I haven't taken a good look at the article in some time. Will do so in the coming weeks. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Maratha "rule"[edit]

I have respectfully reverted an editor's well-meaning but unreliable edit claiming that Kashmir was ruled by the Marathas. Please discuss here, editor, what you're attempting to do. As I say in my edit summary: winning a battle hundreds of miles away does create a rule. For the latter the foundations of an administration have to be set up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Changed it to "expedition". Furthermore, stop constant edit warring and stop your insults with other editors. You have constantly done so for the last several months. Stop this! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC))
Doesn't really work as a part of the Kashmir article. If the Marathas touched on Kashmir (an expedition), then perhaps that should stay in the Maratha article. What does a battle that changed nothing have to do with the history of Kashmir? --regentspark (comment) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I checked both sources that have been cited in this brief new section. Neither says that the Marathas reached Kashmir. They only very briefly pushed back Ahmad Shah Abdali's sons to the west of the Indus while Abdali had returned to Afghanistan, but then became severely undermanned as more than half their army was recalled back to the Deccan for a campaign in South India. Abdali returned to India and wiped out the small Maratha army. The Marathas never got to Kashmir, not even in an expedition. Here is the full quote from one source, one paragraph from which is being quoted in the section (i.e. the optimistic letter from Raghunath Rao (aka Raghoba) to the Peshwa (dated 4 May 1758), or more correctly the letter of good intentions. Here is what happened, according to the source:

The Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao, who was the leader of the Maratha confederacy from 1740 onwards thought of himself the potential dictator of the subcontinent. In his dreary palace at Poona, with his Chitpawan Brahmin advisors, the Peshwa made grandiose plans of conquering all of India. In 1753, he ordered his lieutenants to collect a tax, Chauth, from the Mughal provinces of northwest India. At that time, the Marathas dominated many fronts. The Nizam had been humbled. Mysore, Bengal and Orissa were subjected to repeated raids. The Rajput states in western India and the Mughal successor states of Awadh and Rohilkhand lived in daily fear of Maratha incursions. The Peshwa directed his brother Raghunath Rao alias Raghoba to lead the expedition to the Indus. In 1757, Raghoba crossed the Chambal with an army of 50,000 soldiers. By April 1758, Taimur and Jahan Khan had retreated to the west of the Indus. At this critical juncture, the Peshwa called Raghoba and most of his troops down to south India to crush the Nizam. Only 15,000 Maratha troops were left in Punjab. The impatient Peshwa, not finishing one job completely before initiating another, had miscalculated. Raghoba's recall gave breathing space to Ahmed Shah Abdali. While Abdali was preparing an army to invade India again, he received diplomatic support from the Rohilla leader Najib-ud-Daulah and the Nawab of Awadh, Shuja-ud-Daulah. In Najib and Shuja's reckoning, Abdali was bound to return to Afghanistan after a temporary stay in India. And in the meantime, if Abdali could crush the Marathas, then Najib and Shuja would be saved from paying Chauth to them. Abdali advanced and crushed the Maratha forces in Punjab. The ominous news finally travelled deep south.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

So Kashmir was not captured by Tukoji Holkar? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC))
If it is not the case that Tukoji Holkar did not capture Kashmir, please remove the Maratha section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC))
PS I can only tell you what's in the source. The source from which I have quoted above: Roy, Kaushik (2004), India's Historic Battles: From Alexander the Great to Kargil, Orient Blackswan, pp. 80, 81, ISBN 978-81-7824-109-8, is the one from which the blurb in the Maratha expedition section is taken. The letter is one of intentions only. Says Raghunath Rao, "We have decided to establish our rule up to Kandahar." In reality, Rao never got much beyond the Indus. He was only in the Punjab, and that too for a short time. I note also that Stewart Gordon's magisterial Gordon, Stewart (16 September 1993), The Marathas 1600-1818, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-26883-7 makes no mention of the Marathas in Kashmir. You can search the book in the Google books link I have provided. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Respectfully, Highpeaks35, Can you please tell us why you reverted my edit in this edit with edit summary, "Undid revision 884540164 by Fowler&fowler (talk) the page clearing mentions not to edit war. The section is well referenced. The onus is on you." if you weren't sure that the edit was well referenced. Why are you now asking me to remove the section? I have already removed it once. You reinstated it, please remove it. Noting also for RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Fowler, I think Highpeaks35 is agreeing with you that the section should be removed. The revert you refer to was before the discussion above. Best, --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks, RP. I got confused. Apologies @Highpeaks35:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"most militarized zone" ??[edit]

"Kashmir is widely regarded as the world's most militarized zone"

This seems to be a very subjective statement, and definitely not encyclopedic.

Afghan Weakling ruler?[edit]

Under "Afghan rule" heading, and I quote: "The Afghan Durrani dynasty's Durrani Empire controlled Kashmir from 1751, when weakling 15th Mughal padshah (emperor) Ahmad Shah Bahadur's viceroy Muin-ul-Mulk was defeated ..." Its difficult to believe the "weakling" adjective is necessary or fair to this paragraph, I suggest re-edit, which I can't as I'm not a registered member. (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC) (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC) baden k.

Direct additions to the lead[edit]

I have removed direct additions to the lead, ones which do not constitute summaries of this article's main body content. This article has always been about the history of the Kashmir region. It is not about the history of later India Pakistan conflicts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)