Talk:Kashmir/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit Dispute

Why is Aksai Chin referred to as a Chinese "occupation", when the other regions are referred to as Pakistan controlled Kashmir and Indian controlled Kashmir? The Chinese claim it and just because India disputes the Chinese claim doesn't change the facts on the ground - it is under Chinese control. Let's try and remove all the bias here so that we can move forward and make the page more comprehensive. I've already noted several (uncontroversial) places where the page could be expanded as I'm sure have the rest of you. I like the suggestion of dealing with controversial areas in here. --4.153.221.221 13:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surpisingly Kashmiri terrorism and related activities are not mentioned. A long section is absolutely must. IndiBoy 02:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In order to immediately stop the edit war, I propose to have all the sections, with either POVS included right now and then discussion carried out here. Let me know your opinions. IndiBoy 02:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a version without rants about Indian history, consitution and anti-Pakistan allegations is acceptable. Both terrorism things should be cut short and briefly inserted into one section with both sides of the story. Both "Indian state terrorism" and "Modern Terrorism" in a small section of the article is acceptable but NOT in long sections. When people come to look at the Kashmir article, they don't want 99% anti-Pakistani pro-Indian point of view. They want clear factual information presented in a short neat condition and both sides of the story. Hopefully this helps and ends this edit war. --Anonymous editor 02:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at all the versions in the history and lets find some common lines that we can keep. Lets first focus on commonalities and then we will have them in the article, remove the rest from the article, and then discuss here. Sounds good? IndiBoy 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing unrelated parts which talk about Indias secularism is fine by me. Lets do that. Also How about small sections named "Human right abuses by Indian security forces" and "Armed struggle by Kashmiri militants"? We don't have to call anybody terrorist since the term is overused now a days. Or we can just have one section named "Armed militancy in Kashmir". I already feel good that we are doing this without having to babysit by an administrator. IndiBoy 03:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Absolutely fine with me as long as they are both small, factual and without POV. Please combine various info in Neutral point of view manner. I think we should start edits as soon as possible because a tagged article is an urgent article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you write a section "Armed struggle by Kashmiri militants" and I write "Human right abuses by Indian security forces" sections. Since we possess diagonally opposite views on these, the versions given will automatically be acceptable to both of us. Ofcourse we will further discuss what actually goes in the article. Contributions, suggestions by other editors are welcome and appreciated. IndiBoy 04:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I really don't have time to write an article. How about we revert the article to its state before the "modern terrorism" edits were made and then we can change name of the "state terrorism" section to the proposed name ("Human right abuses by Indian security forces"). After that we re-insert the "modern terrorism" section with a changed name ("Armed militancy in Kashmir"). Then we can gradually edit these articles and make them more NPOV, factual and shorter. I think this idea will work. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 04:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to revert back, but I am slightly confused about which edit you are refering to. Can you please post a link to that edit? IndiBoy 04:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

In the latter part of this article, there is an excess use of language like "India believes" or "many Indians think" and it presents a too-lengthy monologue of the Indian viewpoint. Lacks several important references.

>>Talk:Kashmir/Archive1

Bias/Dispute

I see this article totally neutral. The fact is the Pakistani Military looses it importance if the truth that Jammu Kashmir is a State of India is accepted by Pak. There will be no reason for Pak army to interfere in the governance and democracy of Pak. Even the People of Pak know this. The arguments that this is not a neutral article is baseless. Some more facts showing the secular nature and respect of India for neighbours. Nepal, though a Hindu state has always remained free from any Indian interference of any kind. Bhutan is another example. The very foundation of India is multicultural, multilingual and secular. The proof for this is India Lost its one of the Brightest PM Late Rajiv Gandhi defending Sri Lanka against the Tamilians (LTTE) of Indian origin.

                                  ************

It is sad to see such a biased account of History. The fact is that the "tribals" this article refers to were never under the control of Pakistani military or forces. The tribal militias from the north west frontier province of Pakistan entered Kashmir when Kashmiris sought refuge from Hari Singh's brutal policies. These are the very same tribal militias now engaged against the Pakistan military. They never were or will be under Pakistan military.

This article not once mentions the 600,000+ Indian troops that are present in Kashmir. The rampant rapes, murders, tortures, abductions and illegal land expulsions of the populace that have taken place. And it is said that Hindu minority has sufered at the hands of the extremists, but this article fails to mention the magnanimity of ethnic cleansing as a tool of India's state policy that has been occuring in the region. This alone would serve to ware anyone of Indian claims that given the chance to freely decide Kashmiris would join India.

The article refers to Kashmir as being part of India. The fact is Kahsmir never was part of what is today Republic Of India. Its peoples look distinct from the common place Indian peoples. Its language, culture, dress, sociological outlook is very distint from the Indian culture. And the people not only enjoy a closer religious, but also a closer racial, historical and demographic affiliation with those of the people of Pakistan. Otherwise given the imperial mentality India might as well claim Nepal, Tibet, afghanistan, bangladesh and ofcourse Pakistan as "integral" parts of India since these regions also influnced what is today Hinduism. -- User:Omerlives on 19:52, 27 Oct 2004

>>>> Your argument that Kashmir is not an ostensible part of India since Kashmiris "look distinct" from the common Indian peoples is quite questionable. Note that I am not suggesting that it is a part of India, (or not); I am merely questioning your reasoning. Following your reasoning, Arabs, East-Indians, Asians (Pacific Islanders), Hispanic and indeed African American peoples who all have distinct "sociological outlook" from the majority (caucasian) United States demographic ought not to be a part of the US, but have their own states. You say given the imperial mentality, India might as well claim Nepal, Tibet, Afghanistan, etc etc. However, you fail to grasp the gist of the original article that asserts the Secularist character of the Republic of India. This secular character asserts UNITY in DIVERSITY (to use a cliche), not Unification of similar demographics. In fact that is your very argument! You say Kashmiris should be a part of Pakistan because they have more in common(?) with the people of Pakistan. However, secularism means that people can co-exist without having the same religion/caste/gender/sexual preference or physical appearance for that matter. In fact most western ideologies are based on this idea. It is hard to imagine one without this very simple concept (democracy for example). However, another dimension that is added to this debate is Pakistan's Islamic status. Now, it might be easier to follow along with your argument if one can immerse themselves in the Islamic state idea. However, from a more objective point of view (now, we have to assume that a secular point of view is more objective than an islamic one {now please don't argue with this lest we think you are an idi*t}) it is easier to follow along with the Indian (currently posted) view than the one you offer. Now I am not saying that I follow along with that view, but that it offers a better argument than you do.

.Underlying all this discussion is the basic fact >>> "How does pakistan intend to handle the Pakistan occupied kashmir?.When it itself is incapable of handling its own freedom." Pakistan itself is being ruled by a military man.On one hand Pakistan claim that kashmir is theirs.That is they must feel very dearly passionate about them (like brothers).But then why do the Pakistanis want to drag kashmir in the kind of mess that pakistan is in. Pakistan must clean its dirt up rather than dragging thier so called brothers into it.

I have added a report on human rights abuse with kind permission of Amnesty International's press office whom I telephoned this morning. This should take care of your concern that the plight of Kashmiri civilians were not mentioned. Note The report also includes killings by the militants too although the Indian Army is mostly to blame. In regard to your question of troops I have taken Amnesty figures - They obtained these from Army Headquaters Northern Command at Udampur which is HQ for the Corps in the Kashmir valley and the Army Corps in Ladakh

I hope that rectifies the situation regarding the suffuring of Kashmiri Civilians

81.1.116.178 on 06:51, 2 Nov 2004

I totally agree, that this article seems to be extremely POV. An indian schoolbook-account would probably look similar. I think it is especially dangerous, that it mentions non indian claims (it is alleged that) but then dimisses them (the actual reason is). The german article seems to be somewhat more balanced but not as informative. I'd strongly support a split up of this article into a new Kashmir conflict article, where both sides can clearly and reasonably articulate their views. Wikipedia should not take part in the sad indoctrination the Indian media pushes forward when it comes to the history of Kashmir. --grovel 18:05, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuse

This report does NOT appear to be comprehensive as it does not talk about the dislocated Hindu Kashmiri Pandits forced to leave Kashmir. - 203.94.220.231

I am adding extracts of a UN speech by Mr. Menon on Kashmir (http://www.un.int/india/ind29.pdf).

1. The invaders led by Pakistan army continued their march along with Jhelum Valley road towards Srinagar on 22 October, days before Kashmir joined Indian Union. Their triumphant march was temporarily stemmed at Uri, a town fifty miles from Srinagar, by a demilition of a bridge and the gallant resistance of about 150 men under the command of a Brigadier of the Kashmir Army who was killed fighting a memorable last-ditch battle. The raiders managed to construct a diversion about mile long, requiring considerable engineering skill, since, according to "Dawan" of Karachi of 7 December 1947, it was completed in two days- that is to say, in this invasion the Pakistan appears or engineer regiments-their REME-must have participated. It was not possible for them to do otherwise. These men were resisted only by the national militia, by the local populations. They were not welcomed as liberators. They fought a last-ditch battle; they resisted these people. 2. Independent evidence has been offered by London newspapers which in no way could be regarded as being disposed too favourably towards India in these matters at that time. Alan Moorehead, correspondent of the London "Observer" in Pakistan, wrote as follows: "'''''The Pakistanis lookon this as a holy Muslim war." "I read that deliberately, because that is the position even today. India is threatened by a campaign of hatred and preparation for an aggression against is territory. We shall not fire a shot and we shall not allow a solider to leave our borders, but just the same as anyone else we shall discharge our duty of self-defence. The correspondent wrote: "They look on this as a holy Muslim war. Some of them I have seen talk widely of going to Delhi. "Alan Moorehead motored to Peshawar and the Khyber Pass from where this crusade began. He wrote: "Everywhere recruiting is goingon... This is happening not only the tribal territory....but inside Pakistan itself" (Ibid No/.24). That was at the end of October and beginning of November 1947. There is also photographic evidence. As Associated Press photographer, presumably an American, flew over a section of Kashmir and said that he saw more than twenty villages in flames. The villages, in an area ten miles long and ten miles wide, apparently had been set fire to buy the Muslim invaders who were scouring the valley and moving in the direction of Srinagar.(http://www.un.int/india/ind29.pdf).

3. Baramula, India, 10th November-The City had been stripped of its wealth and young women before the tribesmen fled in terror at midnight, Friday, before the advancing Indian Army. Surviving residents estimate that 3,000 of their fellow townsmen, including four Europeans and a retired British Army Officer, known only as Colonel Dykes, and his pregnant wife, were slain. When the raiders rushed into town on 26th October, witnesses said: 'One party of Masud tribesmen immediately scaled the walls of Saint Joseph's Franciscan Convent compound, and stormed the Convent Hospital and the little church. Four nuns and Colonel Dykes and his wife were shot immediately. The Raiders' greed triumphed over their blood lust'. A former town official said: 'The raiders forced 350 local Hindus into a house, with the intention of burning it down. The group of 100 raiders is said to be holding another five, as hostages, on a high mountain, barely visible from the town. Toda, twenty-four hours after the Indian army entered Baramula, only 1,000 were left of a normal population of about 14,000 (New York Times" by Robert Trumbull, dated 10 November 1947)

4. That Pakistan is unofficially involved in aiding the raiders is certain. Your correspondent has first-hand evidence that arms, ammunition and supplies are being made available to the "Azad (Invaded) Kashmir forces" (The Times, 13 January 1948)

Ignoring all these, how can the author say, it is a free movement by tribal people?It is terrorism (so called 'Jihad') by religious extremists sponsored by a military/mullacracy against a secular democratic republic. --66.185.84.71 06:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

better maps?

I know it's touchy, but how about these [1], [2] (made by the CIA) -- they seem pretty objective, just with better resolution than ours. Or how about a satellite image, [3] (by the NASA). dab (ᛏ) 19:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV : Human rights abuse

Jammu and Kashmir is one of the most militarised regions in the world and ordinarily has around 700,000 security forces stationed there (now said to be up to million).

Figures like 500,000 and above are often cited by Pakistani sources. Indian government puts the number of troops at 100,000 - 150,000 --DuKot 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont know the Pakistani sources you refer to. 500,000 is the number in the State as a whole and includes Siachen and the LoC. 150,000 is in the Valley proper. Text can be changed to reflect this information. Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human rights of the people of Kashmir continues to be ignored.

This is not a netural statement. There are instances of human rights violation. But to say that human rights are always ignored is incorrect. --DuKot 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hundreds of cases of torture, deaths in custody, extrajudicial executions and "disappearances" are reported every year.

There are some instances of violation. Hundreds is not a neutral point of view. --DuKot 20:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hundreds is NPOV if it is stated as fact by a neutral observer. See below. Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't think Human Rights Abuse should be a separate topic while discussing any trouble zone of the World, particularly when the Human Rights issue in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Chinese Occupied Kashmir is not put up.

I dont know if there are any humans in the Aksai Chin to have their rights violated. IN any case, if you have information about HR violations in PoK or the AC, cite your sources and edit the article to say so. Otherwise, HR abuse is a valid part of any article on Kashmir.Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2. The Amnesty International extract speaks of 700,000-1,000,000 troops which is clearly wrong as the total strength of the Indian armed forces all over India is 980,000. The AI report thus loses its credibility in this regard and cannot be put up as a credible source.

The AI article could be lumping paramilitaries such as the BSF and the CRPF together with Army regulars. This in itself does not lead to loss of credibility. However, if this section is not to be rewritten, I will require that the article be sourced.Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3. Further the Indian Army attempt to clear up stats and mis-statements need to be referenced http://www.armyinkashmir.org/v2/articles/art_kashmir_amuddle.shtml as an alternative viewpoint to present both sides of the picture if an NPOV cannot be arrived at. Contribution by 08:26, 15 May 2005 202.56.231.116

I am afraid, Amnesty is between Pakistani and Indian viewpoints of what is happening. An attempt to present 'all' viewpoints, and then limiting it to Amnesty and the Indian Army is doomed to fail. Other editors will then require Kashmiri and Pakistani viewpoints. I think a genuine Amnesty article is sufficient. Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restored NPOV tag to human rights section. By definition, view of Amnesty international could not be considered a neutral. --DuKot 00:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• Amnesty is an independent organisation and its viewpoint must be considered neutral. I suggest that you read the latest Amnesty report on HR abuses at this webpage: [4]. Neither India nor its security forces are to be blamed for the detoriating HR situation in Kashmir. Pakistan is trying to use HR issue as propaganda. There are more HR violations in Azad Kashmir than in Jammu and Kashmir. --IncMan 07:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is confused. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, an Amnesty article is considered NPOV as most people know the biases that they have, and that does not get in the way of their efficient information-gathering. If a genuine Amnesty report is linked to and quoted from non-selectively, then I will expect the NPOV tag to be removed.

As I have stated elsewhere, if you have information about HR violations in PoK, source and edit.

Hornplease 01:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has linked to the original Amnesty report, I am deleting the reference. I will use the extracts from the article linked to, and remove the NPOV tag on the section. Any disgreements, please discuss on the talk page first! Thanks. Hornplease 06:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Points to be included to present a NPOV complete pic of Kashmir

1. The article does not mention the reasons for Pakistan dividing the part of Kashmir occupied them. This facet of political action by Pakistan needs to be addressed. Particularly the fact that it tries to delink the Northern Areas from the overall Kashmir discussion. This combined with its gift of Kashmiri land to China so as to gain political and military support.

2. There are several constituent peoples that form part of this division, who are different from the rest of Pakistan. Most areas are completely Shia and Ismaili followers as against the predominant Sunni followers in the rest of Pakistan. Given Pakistan's history of sectarian violence this is a facet that cannot avoid mention, particularly when the Sunnis try and exert their influence increasingly in these Shia areas.

3. Besides, the people of POK have limited freedoms compared to the rest of the people of Pakistan, ( a direct contrast to India ) this too because of the substantial Pakistani military presence here. There is no democracy, and the area as such is practically under army law, a clear human rights situation.

4. This area has been the hotbed of terrorism practiced on India by secessionist militants who get trained in Pakistan camps across this area. There is enough evidence on this and as such has been acknowledged by Pakistani authorities in power. This characteristic of the region needs to be captured in a world suffering under terrorist militancy. This particularly being the reason why the Indian army build up in Indian controlled Kashmir is high and when the terrorist militancy is the cause of deaths of numerous civilians, security forces, government establishments and infrastructure. This is the CAUSE to the effect that is felt in India which is captured by the article on Kashmir in Wiki. The CAUSE arising out of Pakistani actions in POK thus needs to be spoken about.

5. Human Rights issues in POK as well as Chinese occupied Kashmir for NPOV.

All these will represent the balance, perspective and completeness that reflect cause and effect and bring about the necessary NPOV required.

POV

Pakistan calls the northern region 'Azad Kashmir'. India calls it 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir'. Mention of both would be POV. Arrive to a single term that doesn't offend both sides and remove the POV message --Neo77 11:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism

The article mentions little about terrorism in Kashmir . --IncMan 15:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a clear mention of three different sorts of separatist groups, and how they are viewed by the Indian government. If more is required, then setting up pages for some of the larger groups, whether militant Islamic - Lashkar-e-Toiba - or secular secessionist - the JKLF - would be a good idea. No need for that on this page. Hornplease 01:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is a separate article Terrorism in Kashmir for that information.

Terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir is aided and abetted by the rogue state Pakistan. it had not only occupied large part of the then free state of J&K, with which it had signed an agreement, but also refuge to vacate it in response to demand of the UN resolution. Now they want to continue to wage the proxy war with India since in direct confrontations they have been vanquished convincingly.. The various militant groups are nothing but offshoots of ISI of Pakistan Army. In fact Pakistan has become a rogue nation which sponsors state terrorism. USA will be the major suffere of this export of terrorism as has been proved by 911. Pakistan never experienced a proper civilised governance and need to be held under UN control for purging the Pakistani society of unhuman elements. [The preceding was an unsigned comment left by 59.92.36.127. ]

Shalimar Gardens

The article on Shalimar Gardens is the one in Lahore. But the one in Kashmir is completely different. Apart from sharing the same name, it has nothing to do with the Shalimar Gardens in Lahore. So why provide its link? --IncMan 10:34, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Because people reading the article want to learn about the Shalimar Gardens listed as written in the Kashmir article. Why the censorship?
Do I smell POV.--AI 10:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• No No there is nothing like that. Just because Shailimar Gardens (Lahore) and Shalimar Gardens (Kashmir) are 2 different places, with different history and everything is different, except the same name. --IncMan 10:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

OK, my apologies. I will help fix this problem. Just bear with me over the next 20 minutes or so.--AI 10:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuses

Where is the link to Amnesty International's report?

I don't find the link in the references or anywhere, could anyone kindly direct me to the right link to the Amnesty report from which the Human Rights Issue chapter is based on? If no one can direct me then I'm afraid I'll have to remove it in one week. Always quote your references with the right name to avoid such confusions in the future. Afterall some might post and just diappear or die and it's left for the rest of us to once again cull the same repetitive information in case of a doubt. Always quote your sources properly, that's a nice little habit.--Idleguy 05:07, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I second this. The report, besides, has clearly been selectively quoted from. Amnesty takes no part in the Kashmir dispute, and therefore is quite clearly NPOV, but the quotation should reflect their viewpoint accurately. Hornplease 01:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just read this article [5] on amnesty report. --IncMan 16:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

India vs. Pakistan

Take a look at the edit on 30 May 2005 16:43 by User:70.23.190.110:

Pakistan has frequently used the tension in Kashmir to further its own political agendas and to deflect attention from the serious human rights violations in its own countries.

was changed to

India has frequently used the tension in Kashmir to further its own political agendas and to deflect attention from the serious human rights violations in its own countries.

Should both countries be mentioned?:

India and Pakistan have frequently used the tension in Kashmir to further their own political agendas and to deflect attention from the serious human rights violations in their own countries.

--AI 20:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw that edit - from Pakistan to India - and fell about the floor laughing. It should certainly be 'India and Pakistan' if for reasons of subject-verb agreement alone.Hornplease 00:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, such "compromises" should only be made carefully. If "Pakistan supports terrorism" is changed by some vandal to "India supports terrorism", it doesn't automatically mean that a compromise of "India and Pakistan support terrorism" should be reached. 128.118.126.19 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Claims to Kashmir, Very Biased Section

This section is very biased and paints a false picture of India as secular state. Where was India's secularism when thousands of Sikhs were burned alive in 1984? Where was the secularism when thousands of Muslims were killed in Gujarat in 2002? An example of Secular country is United States where even after September 11, there was no violence against Muslims. If an event like September 11 attacks had happened in India, tens of thousands of innocent Muslims would have been massacred with the help of the government. ~anon

The above is just ranting. I don't think that this is the best place to discuss India's secular credentials.~ inscrutable euphoria

On the contrary, this is a significant point and one which you are attemting to shun. Securlism is not the formula of diffrent people living in one country it is an ideal whose beliefs are embeded in co-existence and the above statement brings to life the true realities that allthough india is home to a large array of people they do not co-excist. the so called SECULAR HINDUstan (see the contradiction)allegedly the largest democracy in the world laid claims to Kashmir in a way that was anything but democratic ( the maharaja was put under house arrest instantly and remained to the end of his life). and when non secular and non democratic Pakistan is asking to decide the fate of kashmir and more importantly the fate of the kashmiri people in a democratic manner then so called democratic India is viciously rejecting the ideal.

NPOV : Claims to Kashmir

This article is clairly Pro india and Anti Pakistan beacause of the following

• India has the second largest population of Muslims on this planet (Statement is false as i cannot find any numbers to back this claim so according to offical census the Muslim population of pakistan is greater then india.

• Pakistan's claim is shown in the point of view of a indian

• this article mention the Shia - Sunni Violenece but fails to mention the interal violence between radical hindu mobs and Muslims and christain and india's insecurity in the north eastern states.

• This artice gives a impression that the terrorist in kashmir are Pakistani or Pakistani Backed (that may be true) But there is also local isurgency by fellow kashmirs who want independence and get rid of the indian army.

• This article gives a impression that kashmirs want to join india rather then pakistan. thats futher then the truth infact given a choice they would not join either.

I agree with all yr points expect the 1st one. India does have a greater muslim population than Pakistan. There is no official census which says that Paki muslims are more than Indi muslims. To all the editors, please read Terrorism in Kashmir article. It represents both Indian and Pakstani point of view on the terrorism. I hope that the Kashmir article is also written in similiar fashion, perhaps even better. Thanks --IncMan 12:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

SO BIASED

With all due respect to the editors, this is absolutely the most biased section I have ever read on Wikipedia. It rants on and on about India's history and "wonderful" constitution/secularism, while talking against Pakistan accusing it of being "radical" and "terrorist"(among endless other allegations). It has no NPOV or absolutely any Pakistani POV. Line by line, unverifiable, unfactual, false statements are being made to support Indian POV. People please understand that this is an encylopedia, NOT a persuasive essay and that this should be a professional NPOV section even though this is a controversial issue. We also don't need the article to be 80% history of India and rants about its constitution. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Massive blanking

There was a massive blanking of most of the sections by 81.86.187.104 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure which of his edits are ok and which are just vandalism, but could the regular contributors to this page take a look into the diffs? Thanks --Ragib 21:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected this page so that both sides can trash out issues here. Once a compromise has been reached, it will be unprotected. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Numerous spelling and grammatical errors

Beyond the idiotic content of this article, this article has numerous spelling and grammatical errors. For example, I believe there is no word spelled "capaicity" in the English language that I know of. I beg that whenever the POV issues are worked out that someone who actually has a significant comprehension of the English language edit this. I plead for all South Asians to refrain from using incorrect prose. Please peruse your local libraries. Reference works rarely refer to the author and definitely do not refer the author as "we" as if to signify some collective whole. Reference works also do not refer to the reader as you. They also do not rely on clauses seperated by parenthesis. An example of this idiotic style :

Note that by this nomenclature, the word "Kashmir" in "Indian Kashmir" is used in a very general sense; more specifically, "Indian Kashmir" includes not only the Kashmir Valley (which is a proper part of Kashmir) but also Jammu and Ladakh (which are not parts of Kashmir per se, though they are parts of the overall region of "Jammu and Kashmir"). This may seem a little confusing if you are new to this subject, but after you read a bit more, we hope you will see that this nomenclature scheme makes a lot of sense.

WE beg that YOU (insert clause here) learn to use the English language properly. WE hope that WE are understood by what WE say.

Now doesn't that sound like a little like an Ayn Rand novel.

The Kashmir Region

The article doesn't contain this very basic piece of information: Politically Kashmir is divided into 5 regions-

1. Jammu and Kashmir- with India
2. Azad Kashmir- Pakistan
3. Northern Areas, Pakistan
4. Aksai Chin- China
5. Siachen Glacier- neutral zone; patrolled by both India and pakistan

Please include this in the article. Thanks- IncMan 11:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing can be added until both sides reach an agreement. Instead of using terms such as Azad Kashmir and pakistan occupied Kashmir, we prefer to use neutral terms in wikipedia such as Pakistan- China- and India-administered Kashmir like is done on the BBC sites. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is just not acceptable, instead of fighting what we can do is just present facts, no opinions, then have separate pages for Indian and Pakistani POVs. You can rant all you want about the Indian army and the pakistani terrorists there. No need to muddle the whole wiki. I think this is the only way to stop edit wars.

Regarding India - Forget Ghandhi, Think Stalin (just ask any Kashmiri).

This article is full of Indian disinformation and propaganda. It is easily the worst article I have ever read on wikipedia. I am literally stunned and disgusted with the way truth has been mangled here. Its grotesque continued existence on wikipedia, in its current state, is simply indefensible and intolerable. I am surprised that it has not been thrown out by an admin already.

Why do I think this article reaks? Here are only a FEW reasons:

• It's chokeful of outright white lies and stupid utter nonsense that only a brain-dead person or persons, could've written. To persons who contributed to this article,

NEWSFLASH: You are NOT writing an editorial piece in the Hindustan Times. You are writing a neutral encyclopediac article that is supposed to represent ALL side's point of view, not just one disgruntled country's.

• It seems to be written as a complaint by the Indian side against much smaller neighbor Pakistan and seems to suggest that the nuclear armed idiotic Indians feel completely powerless infront of those pesky Pakistanis.
• It seems to pretend that instead of the monster that India really is, India is a cute and oh so cuddly sweet little baby, sucking its thumb, completely innocent and unaware of the thousands of systematic rapes of young muslim women of Kashmir, and the uncontrolled, unhampered, institutionalized torture of muslim men of all ages, by Indians.
• ABSOLUTELY NO Kashmiri feels safe in India today because of India'a notorious human rights record. Pick up any report by a neutral western human rights organisation and you will be shocked to see it dripping wet with the blood of 80,000 Kashmiri dead bodies - souls that, for example, were picked up in the middle of the night by uniformed Indian savages dressed as Indian army soldiers, unleashing India's blind fury on the unarmed populace of Kashmir, who were accused only of being muslim.
• Having read just about any of the human rights violations reports about Kashmir, no one will ever look at India the same again - forget Ghandi, think Stalin. India has been exposed to the world for what it really is-a merciless and cowardly tyrant.
• Sooner or later, India will pay dearly for the crimes against humanity that it has committed and continues to commite unabated, because Kashmiris will NEVER forgive India. Each and every Indian atrocity will be avenged some day.
• Kashmir will burn and continue to burn till India burns with it and Indians have to quit Kashmir. That is the will of the Kashmiris - NOT the ISI's.
• If India is so sure that Kashmiris wish to stay with India, then WHY is it so afraid of simply ASKING them? Isn't this EXACTLY what the UN resolution of 1948 asks of India, i.e. to hold a plebiscit in Kashmir to ask them what they want? Why has India refused to abide by the the UN resolution on Kashmir? Does India have utterly no respect whatosever for international law?
• Why does India continue to usurp the Kashmiri people's right of self determination? And then act as though it had the moral high ground? IT DOES NOT.
• Secular India? Indians are always beating the drum of being secular. I don't think these people even know the word's definition. A recent case in point: the massacre of 3000 Indian muslim men, women and children by being burnt alive by other non-muslim (mostly hindu) Indians, in the state of Gujrat.
• Where were these secular Indians, and where was their secular India, when the muslims of Gujrat were pleading for their lives? A secular India? What an obscene joke.
• Kashmiris look at Gujrat and know they have no freedom and no future in a hindu India, since to this day, NOT A SINGLE person has been brought to justice and probabaly never will be.
• To all those people who think that another Gujrat cannot happen again, please sign up for a lobotomy immediately-I think you really need it because it can happen anywhere at any time in India.
• Why is Kashmir today a Police state? Who are the terrorists? Who is more terrifying? The unarmed Kashmiri people, or the 600,000 brutal Indian soldiers, armed to the teeth, who rape, turture and plunnder each day in Kashmir, taking what they want and destroying what they don't, whose savagery is matched only by the holocaust committed by the evil Nazis againt the innocent jews, or perhaps even more appropriately, Stalin, who killed millions just for power.
• These Indian babboons DON'T belong in the paradise that is Kashmir. They should go back where they came from. They belong in the savage jungle, which is India. And when they do (which they inevitably will), they will NOT be missed by a single Kashmiri.
• Why hasn't India been declared a terrorist state? The case for such a declaration is clear. Just ask any Kashmiri.

Sincerely, The Bulldozer.

I can give you an answer for every question you raised on India's integrity, if only you could use a more decent language. Thanks --IncMan June 29, 2005 11:36 (UTC)

"Indian Baboons"

Calling the Hindu God Hanuman, a baboon or a chimpanzee, is as bad as calling Allah an ass or a pig, now you decide if this is sensible or not. This is not the place to call non-islamic gods names, it does not help. Everyone has the right to worship the God they believe, Jesus, Krishna, Allah all should be equally respected.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I feel that the use of derogatory, racist remarks like "Indian Baboons" have no place here. Please try to be more tactful.

I guess I should apologize profusely for it seems I may have offended your delicate sensiblities. But before you jump to

any conclusions and pull out the gun and shoot me, I would like to bring to your attention (for I suspect you are

at present unaware), that the monkey in fact, is an animal that is highly regarded in India. The Hindus hold it in

such high esteem that they have designated it as one of their most beloved gods. I believe the

monkey god's name is 'Hanuman'.

Hanuman is a god that is also a soldier. He protects some other gods in the hindu mythology which are higher

ranking gods than him. Hence, my reference to Indian soldiers (and only soldiers not the entire Indian population) as Indian

babboons (or may be I should've explicitly called them chimpanzees, for I believe the monkey god is a chimpanzee). The picture

of Hanuman has a highly humanized face but look closely at the lower right corner and you'll see his monkey tail).

I don't see how my reference 'Indian babboons' can be construed by anyone who knows anything about India as racist

or derogatory. They might in fact, consider your western outlook that calling someone a monkey is racist, as being racist

in itself (but forgiveable in this case, due to your obvious lack of the above provided background).

Hindus also consider some other animals sacred (such as the famous sacred cow). Personally, I like this part of hinduism -

the love and regard for animals. But the problem is they don't show the same love and regard to humans if they happen

to either be non-hindu or have the misfortune of being born into one of hinduism's lower casts.

p.s. India is one of the most racist countries in the world. Try and do a little research regarding the Indian

caste system. Your eyes will be opened.

Excerpts from wikipedia's Hanuman article:

In Hinduism, Hanuman is a god who aided Rama (an avatar of Vishnu) in rescuing his wife, Sita, from King Ravana of the Rakshasas. "Hanuman is the son of a cursed apsara, a celestial, named Punjisthala, who by curse becomes Anjana, a female monkey." "But Hanuman’s monkey nature is not tolerable by some sages and hermits during his childhood."

The Bulldozer 28 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)

So they DO have computers in madarsahs now a days. IndiBoy 29 June 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Just curious, is it what they teach you there? IndiBoy 29 June 2005 03:00 (UTC)

Okay both of you should STOP these religious attacks right now. This is completely against wikipedia policy. First of all Bulldozer, this is absolutely NOT the appropriate place to post this. It is against policy, so please do not do this in the future. Religious attacks are very wrong. Also IndiBoy, although you might find the material above offensive, please refrain from making the same type of attack. Bulldozer never even said whether he is Muslim or not and making such attacks puts you on the same level as him. I hope you will both be more tolerant in the future and not escalate the Kashmir conflict to religious levels. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 03:47 (UTC)

If you say so, I will stop, Mr. Anonymous Editor, sir ! Believe me, it pains me to say these things because there's so much I like about India and Indian culture. But the things I don't like, as mentioned above, I wholly stand by. Indians have no idea the kind of fire they are playing with in Kashmir. Kashmiris will remember it all. And I fear the day when Kashmir becomes the next Iraq. Peace out, The Bulldozer 29 June 2005 04:54 (UTC)

Isn't Pakistan responsible for the fire burning in Kashmir. Kashmiris will also remember that it were the Pakistani-backed insurgents who killed more than 40,000 Kashmiris to date, majority of whom were muslims. Instead of blaming each other, it would be a better if we could help find a peaceful solution to the crisis. And remember, true wisdom is when a man sees everything equally irrespective of its state of existance. --IncMan June 29, 2005 10:42 (UTC)

Indians have managed to lock up this article but they cannot lock up The Truth. Muslims will defeat Hindia one day and not just Kashmir but the whole India will be part of Pakistan. I urge all muslim readers to stop this Indian and western propaganda. OmerFa 29 June 2005 08:30 (UTC)

congratulations brother bulldozer, please don't stop. The world should look at the true face of Hindooooooooooooostan. OmerFa 29 June 2005 08:46 (UTC)

I just pity your ignorance OmerFa. If you think that such views would please Allah then perhaps only He can help you. Thanks --IncMan June 29, 2005 10:42 (UTC)

All of you need respect for other religions as this is going nowhere. OmerFa is a suspected sockpuppet of a non-Pakistani, non-Muslim editor who is bent on creating ethnic conflict between South Asians. IncMan (guptadeepak), I don't know why you are escalating this conflict even more as it highly against wikipedia policy. By the way, both India and Pakistan are responsible for many of the deaths in Kashmir as clearly they are responsible for the land currently under their occupation. Now, I hope all sides will solve this and come to a peaceful resolution. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:09 (UTC)

I share the same opinion regarding User:OmerFa. Í am quite sure that User:The Bulldozer is another "username" of OmerFa. I have retracted from my previous statements. --IncMan June 29, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous editor, is there a way in which this article can be restricted to a few? If not, please delete this article away completely. Till then whoever incites on religious grounds should be locked out. Is that possible? -- Anonymous contributor.

Anon contibutor (aka 67.161.8.219), I am looking into removing religious attacks by people on both sides and resolving this issue. I have already warned Bulldozer, OmerFa and IncMan not to make personal attacks as that is against Wikipedia policy and I am hoping they all agreed. In the mean time, I would appreciate if you also refrained from making these type of attacks as you have previously done (and I removed them). If any particular user continues personal attacks, then it is in Wikipedia's best interests to block them. Also, if you want to leave a comment, use your IP address 67.161.8.219 as a user name. Hope that helps. - Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

I have no doubts that Bulldozer and OmerFa are both Pakistanis, as is most probably Anonymous Editor, but how does it matter? 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Yes, "why does it matter"? I would hope you don't try and escalate this either. If it doesn't matter then you probably shouldn't mention it. For your information, I'm American. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't be asking this at all, but can you confirm that you are not of Pakistani origin? 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Exactly you shouldn't be asking this at all. I don't need to confirm anything to you. I am what I say I am and if you don't like it that's fine with me. I can only stress that maybe you should mind your own business. Thanks for your interest, though. Btw, perhaps you would like to tell everyone why you were vandalizing other people's user pages? --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

I am a proud Indian eventhough I have been staying in US for several years. Anonymous editor, why would you identify yourself as an American but and rather not talk about your Pakistani identity? Does it offend you? IndiBoy 30 June 2005 04:54 (UTC)

No, I don't have a Pakistani identity, that's the issue. If I had one it wouldn't offend me and I am sure I would be proud, but I dislike having false claims being made about me. I am only of American citizenship. I was born here and I have lived here most of my life. I mean if I simply called you Ethiopian (like the previous editor simply called me Pakistani), could I then assume that you have an "Ethiopian Identity"? I think you get my point. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Funny that you list yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pakistan AimLess 30 June 2005 06:41 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But it is not a list of Pakistanis, it is a list of people interested in articles related to Pakistan. I have always been interested in South Asian history and since three of my best friends are Pakistani and Indian, this interest has grown. I enjoy studying Pakistani history a lot I have to admit. Thanks, but it's really not that "funny". --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 06:51 (UTC)

I see, I get your point. There is an unfortunate trend that I see here, people from south asia and the thirld world would rather forget their identity. But I see that is not the case here. My apologies. Let work towards a common solution and try to find a version that is acceptable to all. I support your idea of reverting back to older version, if there is one that is acceptable to all. IndiBoy 30 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)

Yes I realize that is a probable trend, but it's good to see that you understand unlike the vandal editor making the false claims. Regardless, the reverting will have to take place after the article is unprotected. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:10 (UTC)

Yes, but we have to come up with a solution so that the article could be unprotected. IndiBoy 30 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Man..U guys have made a huge pro-india page by the name of Kashmir . I hope it gets neutral somehow Farhansher 30 June 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Anonymous editor is a sockpuppet American. He's clearly lying about not being of Paksitani origin, so that his Islamist, Pakistani and Indophobic agenda seem to appear a neutral point of view. Anyone who looks into the history of articles he edited will be convinced.

Interestingly, he also proclaims himself to be (just) a mediator in the Kashmir (article) dispute here: User talk:Guptadeepak . We can guess what kind of "mediator" he is going to be. 128.118.126.64 30 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Exactly, how am I a sockpuppet? Would you like to name the user you claim I am a sockpuppet of? Or where have I "lied" I am "Pakistani" or not? Why exactly am I being shouted at here by pro-Indian and anti-Pakistani editors, when I only tried to stop users from making religious attacks against people? And exactly how am I Indophobic when I talk regularly and peacefully with other Indian editors who are actually willing to make productive contributions to the article. You hindu extremists say that anyone who is Muslim is an "Islamist", so I pay no attention to that attempted attack. Seriously, if you vandalist pro-Indian anonymous proxy editors are simply going to make attacks against me for stepping in an trying to stop the religious conflict between editors, then that truly shows what brand of nationalism you are being taught at home.

By the way, the reason I have stepped into those articles is because they were the ones being a) vandalized and b) unfairly biased. If you guys are simply going to blast out at anyone "foreign" who is non-Indian or shows an interest in South Asian history than that truly shows you are not here to contribute to the Wikipedia and that you want to make this nothing more than a racist pro-Indian hindu extremist website. In which case I fail to realize why I am trying to stop racist attacks being made against you by other users. BY THE WAY, if you have any concerns about "me" then please address them to my talk page rather than on the Kashmir article. Thanks --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

I never said I was a Hindu or even an Indian. Yet you accuse me of being a "Hindu Extremist", "racist" and "vandalist." That doesn't count as personal attack, right? You have also invented a conspiracy theory. I am surprised that till now you haven't held Israel responsible for contributing to all this. 128.118.126.64 30 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

That's nice. Anyone else you would like to involve in your bigotry? Oh I don't recall you giving any proof of your accusation that I am a sockpuppet. Sounds sad when you can't put any proof into your allegations. Btw, why do you hate that I am trying to stop religious attacks? Does it eliminate any more chances of you starting a flame war? --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Could everyone please stop the personal attacks and interrogations about other editors and use the Talk: page for its intended purpose instead; specifically, working out article content? Thanks. 216.94.22.2 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally an editor comes along who actually realizes why this is inappropriate for this talk page. --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

Stop attacking Anonymous editor and help re-write this ugly pro-Murder and pro-Rape article

• Anonymous editor has raised a very important point above: any time someone calls himself a muslim, hindus automatically label him an islamist and a terrorist. Why is that? What is the thought process behind this?
• Is it because some of these same 'terrorists', who were created, trained and armed by the American CIA during the Afghan Jihad, defeated India's old best friend, the soviet union?
• Do you Indians ever dream about what could have been, had the Afghans not disgraced and humiliated the soviets, the evil empire was still around, the cold war was very much alive and Americans were still practicing 'duck and cover'?
• Do I see some of this same residual anger at the US victory over your old best friends the soviets, being directed at Anonymous editor, an American?
• How dare you claim that all muslims are anti Israel or antisemitic. I'll have you know that some of the finest human beings I know on this planet happen to be jewish. And they are my best friends. Oh, and btw, they have NO love for your extra judicial killings, murders, rapes and torture and rampant abuse of power against not only muslims in Kashmir, Gujrat, and elsewhere in your country, but also against other minoriteis like sikhs and Indian jews and christians.
• Lay off, it's for your own good. The Bulldozer 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Can we just stop comment-counter comment on this? How about just let the matter drop? This applied to both sides of the dispute. Rather than improving the article, people are just picking up fight over nothing. Let's just ignore any further comments on this thread. Thanks. --Ragib 30 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been saying all along. Thank you Ragib for saying this once more and Bulldozer for his kind words on my behalf. Future editors: please discuss any edits relevant to this article on this page. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Bulldozer, this issue was over, and you have tried your best to start again with your loser attitude. Please leave your theories and fantasies to yourself, I don't want to engage in this again, and this is my last post on this matter. And please don't be such a hypocrite. Either you can be a true muslim and follow the Koran, or be friend to a Jew. I don't see how you can be both. Here are some things that the Koran has to say on the subject of Jews:

• Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 61
• Jews are the greediest of all humankind. 96
• Jews and Christians believe in idols and false deities, yet they claim to be more rightly guided than Muslims. 51
• "Those (Christians and Jews) are they whom Allah hath cursed." 52
• For the Jews, Allah hath prepared a painful doom. 160-1
• Allah hath cursed the Jews and hardened their hearts. Nearly all of them are treacherous. 12-13
• Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them. 51
• Jews and Christians are losers. 53
• Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians. 57
• Jews and Christians are evil-livers. 59
• Allah hath cast enmity and hatred among the Jews. 64
• Fight against Christians and Jews who disbelieve in Allah. 29
• Christians and Jews are perverse. Allah himself fights against them. 30
• Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to Christians and Jews. 34
• A hypocritical Jew looks like an ass carrying books. Those who deny the revelations of Allah are ugly. 5

128.118.126.16 30 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)

We all know that the lame excuses will include "wrong interpretation", "metaphorical" etc. 128.118.126.16 30 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)

LOL no surprise that Bulldozer's "kind words" are music to Anonymous Editors ears...(Oops...sorry I forgot music was Unislamic.) Such people are self-proclaimed "mediators" who are going to "NPOV" this article.

(The previous comment was left was by user 128.118.126.16)

oh shut up and go drink some cow pee you stinky little cow-lover. Everytime someone stops this you come in, try to cause problems between the true religions and start praising that son of a bitch ghandi. U have a wrong interpretation of everything, I'm surprised you can read ur own language. Do they finally have schools in hindustan now,? Well they probably don't teach anything if you cant even read. Look I can do what you did too. So now look what it says in hindustan temple:

• Kill everyone who does not look like a monkey. Otherwise jump into the ganges where the cows take baths. 5
• Drink cow pee and you will be free as secular state. 19
• Pray to vishnu and he will give you another ass. 56
• "Oh my hindu bitches, anyone who does not smell like shit is not your friend. Mooo!" 254-255

We all know that the lame hindu excuses will include "wrong interpretation", "metaphorical" etc. So if you have any problems go home to ur can of cow pee, while I have some steak. Yum!

(The previous comment was left was by user 70.50.116.218)

These 'Secular' Hindus are Ghandi Killers

Could you Indians PLEASE STOP trotting around this mythical idea of a 'secular India', as if it was a thoroughbred champion race horse, winner of this year's Kentucky derby? You may have succeeded in this self-delusion, but you are not pulling the wool over anyone else's eyes. If anyone had any doubts about how secular you guys really are, he/she only has to read this page, as a living example of your 'deep compassionate Ghandistic, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I love all religions" secularism. To the naked eye, an Indian seems like such a peaceful Ghandhi loving, nice person - one thinks, "Wow, what a swell guy!" But just scratch the surface a little, and the truth comes crashing out in a furious outburst of galactic proportions. WASN'T IT ONE OF YOUR OWN 'SECULAR' HINDU BRETHEREN WHO KILLED GHANDHI? If memory serves me, wasn't he killed because he called for an end to muslim persecution and murder, and called muslims 'his' people? And you 'secular' hindus couldn't take it? Give me a break Mr.Secular - YOU AREN'T. The one good hindu who could truly have brought muslims & hindus together - and what do you do with him, YOU KILL HIM.

In response to your latest diatribe: muslims have MORE in common with jews and christians, than a hindu will ever understand.

• • First of all, all three of our religions are what comprise the Abrahamic religions. They have the same roots and are related at the gene level.

Here are some excerpts from wikipedia's Abrahamic religion article: An Abrahamic religion (also referred to as desert monotheism) is a term sometimes used to refer to a religion derived from an ancient Semitic tradition attributed to Abraham, a great patriarch described in the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur'an. This group of largely monotheistic religions, in which many include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, comprises about half of the world's religious adherents. Muslims refer to adherents of most Abrahamic religions as fellow People of the Book, "the Book" symbolizing divine scripture, such as the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an. They see Abraham as one of the most important of the many prophets sent by God. Many Christians generally do not view themselves as part of an "Abrahamic religion," but view Abraham as an early figure of faith. Jews see Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people.

• • Jews, christians and muslims, worship the same SINGLE God and not hundreds of thousands of big gods and little gods, and a

special god for every occasion, taste and every season, and a god for every day of the week and for every reason. Personally, I don't have a problem with how many gods a religion defines. If it rings your bell, gives you some kind of peace, to dance half naked infront of a statue of an elephant or monkey, hey, more power to you. I'll dance with you any day of the week, as along as you understand that I'm still not a hindu. I'm just underlining the fact that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same God, creator of heaven and earth. Many of our most important prayers are IDENTICAL.

• • In your Quran quoting frenzy you forgot to mention more than a few things about the jews and christians which are ALSO in the

Quran, such as:

• • Repeatedly, the Quran says, "The jews are my chosen people." Not once does the Quran, call either christians OR muslims

'my chosen poeple'. Only JEWS have this singular honor.

• • The Quran says, muslim men are allowed to marry jewish and christian women (alongwith muslims women, of course), WITHOUT

the jewish and christian women converting to Islam. Why? Because the two religions are that acceptable to God. Marriage to women of NO other religions, is allowed to muslim men.

• • The Quran repeatedly refers to jews and christians, as people of the book and ASKS muslims to be kind to them for they

are 'the people of the book'.

• • When misguided fools like OBL call either jews or christians, infidels, they are actually going AGAINST the word of God.

Because THE QURAN SPECIFICALLY MAKES CLEAR THAT JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE NOT INFIDELS. Because if they were, why would they be allowed entry into heaven? Thus, by going gainst the word of God, OBL has exited the circle of the Islamic faith, and is now acting completely on his own.

• • Whenever the Quran speaks against jews, it's ONLY directed against a certain segment of the jewish population of arabia,

which tried to genocide muslims in their infancy. That is a historic fact and was based more on socio-political-economic reasons more than anything else. But that was over 1400 years ago. On conquering Mecca, the prophet FORGAVE all the jews and did not even force them to become muslim (just like when muslim rulers reigned over your ancestors in India, they DID NOT convert them to Islam, so that you could now spew forth anti-Islamic rhetoric and show your ignorance about one of the world's greatest religions).

• • The Quran explicitly states, that jews, christians and muslims WILL ENTER heaven. And it doesn't bar someone outright

from heaven simply because they had the misfortune of NOT belonging to ANY THREE of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and says that such people's fate will be decided on an individual basis.

• • Islam's prophet had a special love for christians, for it were christian scholars who first recognized him as the predicted

last prophet of God, the one predicted to arrive by Jesus himself. And christian countries were the first to recognize the prophet's rule in Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, there were some quotations that I can't find anywhere in the Quran. Books weren't even invented 1400 years ago, so your last Quranic quote is an obvious lie. These attacks and counter attacks (and counter counter attacks, ad infinitum) have demonstrated quite adequately and fully exposed to the world how 'secular' you are. And make it woefully clear why the muslims of British India were justified when they felt they had no choice but to acquire a country of their own.

Imagine having to face such anti Islamic venom on a daily basis with ten hindus staring down each muslim man, woman and and child, and have nowhere to run and hide and no way to just turn the harassment off. And if you resist, the fate of the Kashmiri and Gujrati muslim, is infront of you- YOU WILL BE SLAUGHTERED in all of Hindustan's 'secular' glory. This is why muslims were terrified of being left at the mercy of the hindu, and demanded, screamed and shouted, for a country of their own. Now I understand, the sad lives Indian muslims must live.

Sidenote to OmerFa: Omer, no one wants to take over India. I want the hindus to be happy and live long productive lives, but in their OWN country, outside of Kashmir, where they cannot rape and butcher blindly.

Let us all now join in prayer: Oh Lord, guide these lost people to the right path. And please, have mercy on them. Amen. The Bulldozer 1 July 2005 15:50 (UTC)

Would you please take the Anti-Religion X", (put name of any religion) elsewhere? This article is about a geographic entity, Kashmir, not about your or anyone elses background, political ideas etc. If you have dislike against some religion, keep it to yourself. And instead of wasting Penn state's b/w to fight other people over almost nothing, please focus on the actual purpose of this page, namely to discuss the article on Kashmir. Thanks. --Ragib 30 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)

The whole argument on the Kashmir "dispute" comes from the fact that it is a Muslim dominated area, it should go to Islamic Paksitan and not secular India (since Islamic teachings strictly prohibit secularism or tolerance of other religions.) This does bring about a religious angle to this geographical subject. I suggest this article should not discuss the so called "dispute" at all, and only focus on the territory. The current problems of Kashmir should be discussed elsewhere. 128.118.126.16 30 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)

It's good that you are now focusing on the article, and not on the religious affliation of contributors. I agree with the idea of sticking to facts in the main article on Kashmir (location, history, population) etc, and may be create a different article on the "Kashmir conflict". Thanks. --Ragib 30 June 2005 23:34 (UTC)

The first step is to get rid of inaccuracies and include omitted facts. Lets point out inaccuracies in the section below. We don't need any self proclaimed mediators here if we stick to the following format. Ofcourse we will work on the wording, emphasis later. I and Anonymous editor were engaged in a very civil and productive dialogue. We need negotiations not arguments. IndiBoy 1 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

It is good for Indians if that they are called monkeys. Atleast monkeys do not rape every young beautiful Kashmiri women. They are bad people. IndiBoy, you are clearly an Indian. You don't have to tell us. Everybody can guess that. OmerFa 1 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

User:OmerFa, you are a known vandal (see proof of vandalism of my user page). Please stop trolling here too. --Ragib 1 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we include geography & pre partition history only in th this page , & after wards start 2 different articles , one for history from Indian view & the other for Pakistani views . I dont think this article can get factual . There will be wars on each & every line of it . Farhansher 1 July 2005 03:45 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The violence is getting out of hand and IndiBoy is right that he and I were having a civil/productive discussion before vandals/anon IP nationalists came over. Farhanser, I like your idea and I agree that the article probably won't get factual. So the two-article solution is a good idea, although I am sure that once the two articles are created they might need attention under risk of vandalism. Thanks, -Anonymous editor July 1, 2005 13:25 (UTC)

I don't think this partition based on Two-Article Theory would be a good idea. Making two unencyclopediac POV articles is not a good solution. Why should we not be able to succeed in making this one NPOV instead? I think it would be a worthwhile exercise even if it takes some time and effort. First thing, let's start ignoring the non-constructive people who think wikipedia is an extension of their religious propaganda forums and also those who would love to play some kind of "mediators." 130.203.202.156 1 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

I read this discusion here. This same guy 130.203 was vandalising other people user pages and somewhere he said he was user deeptrivia.

I am a proud Indian. I have to tell some Pakistani (?) contributors that they are not making a good case, if any, by making Kashmir a communal issue. The racist name calling is incredibly offensive and shows that Pakistanis forget that muslims across the border have the same ethnicity and DO NOT share their disguesting views on Hindus. Eventhough not perfect, India IS a secular country by constitution and I believe in the system. YusufJamal 1 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you are a proud indian, as you should be. But you should be a little ashamed also, of not saying a single word against the user who has attributed FALSEHOODS to the Quran above in his list of anti christian, anti jewish things he 'found' in the Quran. People have been killed for doing things like that. As for the outburst by 70.50.116.218, I can only say it's a little unfortunate, but the hindus had it coming. First, they put up disgusting lies about muslims of Kashmir on this article (hence provoking my 'Indian baboons' response). Then, they go and dare to desecrate the Quran. Wow, way to go my indian friends.

And if you still think that india is a 'secular' country even after all that has happened - then I guess, there's no need to call the doctor - it's already too late for you.

Enjoy your life as a muslim in hindustan. And good luck, I think you'll need it. The Bulldozer 1 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

I have to tell you Bulldozer, Indian muslims live a lot better life than you think and there is absolutely NO discrimination we face on day to day basis. Bulldozer, India is a lot more diverse country than most people think. You have to atleast visit once in order to get a feeling of the vast and diverse Indian subcontinent. The eastern frontier has people with neat asian features and on the western we have Sikh with their joyful Punjabi culture. On the North there are Kashmir and Ladakh with pensive Buddhist monks and muslim culture unique to the valley and as you go towards south, there are Dravidian people with their ancient Hindu culture. It is almost impossible to characterize Indian culture and therefore you can find almost everything you are looking for. You were looking for dirt and no wonder you found it. YusufJamal 2 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Jamal, the best way to handle things like this is to ignore it completely. So, ignore User:The Bulldozer's rants, he is just trolling around here for creating a flame war, and so is 128.118.126.16. Just ignore them, they'd get tired of the trolling. --Ragib 2 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)

It is very obvious jamal could also be one of the sockpuppets of an Indian editor trying to force Indian point of view. It is convenient that he stepped in to contribute to this page inorder to help show india's "wonderfullness" and ignoring the many massacres of all kinds of Indians including the Sikhs and the murders of Gujaratis. What I saw when I lived in India was not exactly culture like you said but hatred for other persons by the mejority hindus. AND there is discrimination there don't even make such a lie.

As I said, I AM Indian. I said that in my first post itself. India isn't perfect like any other country. Would you say there is absolutely no discimination in the US or the west? I assure you, India is a whole lot better than what you are trying to portray here. I believe in the system and I believe our people will come through. Whoever you are, remember, it is a psycological truism that our most hated enemies are those in whom we recognise something of ourselves. Peace..YusufJamal 2 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

Hey, look at User:The Bulldozer's talk page. I think User:Grubb has come-up with some really good points. --Marqus 2 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

• Very well said Yusuf and Grubb. I must add, and I am sure an overwhelming majority of my community shares my belief, that as a Shia Muslim, I feel much more secure, and can look forward to a much more successful future for myself and my future generations in India, than I could ever have dreamed of in any of these "Islamic" countries. Please stop telling me that I live under a constant threat, when I know I don't. Great cultures and civilizations are products of diversity. A culture where everyone must have the same beliefs and follow the same practices is not a true culture and must deny the human spirit that always seeks to grow and express itself in a variety of ways. Those who have ever tuned into PTV would know that we should not be blaming The Bulldozer for the opinion of India and Indians he holds. Muwaffaq 2 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

Unlocking

I have gone through the following suggestions. I think all of them are reasonable and nobody has shown any objections so far. Therefore I think the article should be unlocked shortly and I hope editors including me will stick to the protocol of discussing first before making major changes. IndiBoy 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Why don't we make the article something similar to [6] + a section on the "dispute"? IndiBoy 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
• We could have two subsections - 1)Indian argument, 2)Pakistani argument in the "dispute" section. IndiBoy 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

I SUGGEST NOT TO UNLOCK THE PAGE UNTILL THE KASHMIR ISSUE IS SOLVED. I SUGGEST TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO OF THE PAGE AND ADD THE FACTS THAT OCCUR HENCE FORTH. THE WHOLE ARTICLE IS NEUTRAL.

Inaccuracies, important missing info

Please write down clearly

Missing info: Kashmir has a long history which needs to be covered. It has been under the Mauryans, Kushans, Indo-Scythians, etc. Gonanda, Karkota ,Utpal and Shah-Miri dynasties were also remarkable. Apart from Mughal rule, the region was also under Afghan dependency from 1752 - 1819. This was followed by Sikh rule from 1819-46. Only then come the Dogras. We would like to see some evidence that the name Kashmir is due to the Dogras. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 23:59 (UTC) (Copied from following section) IndiBoy 1 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

• Kashmir has a very long history which needs to be included. The only information regarding Kashmiri history in the article are the developments after 1947.

Missing info: The tourist attractions section needs to be expanded. Mention the holy shrines of Vaishno Devi and Amarnath located in southern Kashmir. There are also several buddhists religious sites in Ladakh which draws thousands of devotees.--IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Missing info: The article metions nothing regarding Ladakh. --IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Inaccuracies: Claims to Kashmir and Recent developments sections are highly inaccurate and must be shortened. --IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Inaccuracies: We already have an article on Terrorism in Kashmir. The sub-section: "Modern Terrorism in Kashmir" is highly inaccurate and there are no sources mentioned.--IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Missing info: Write something on Kashmir's geography and climate. Kashmir's climatic conditions are very interesting. While the Kashmir Valley expriences high precipitation levels, neighbouring Ladakh is arid. Western regions experience precipitation throughout the year due to Western Disturbances and the Monsoons. -IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Missing info: Mention more on the natural hazards in Kashmir. Scores of people lost their lives due to heavy snowfall and avalanches last winter. --IncMan July 1, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Missing info: Although this might attract extremists and vandals like we have seen above, we might like to say something about the spiritual traditions of Kashmir, including sufism and Kashmir Shaivism . I recently found this interesting article in the Indian Express . 130.203.202.156 1 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

Missing info I think Kashmiri culture, traditions and festivals need to be covered in detail though I don't have enough knowledge of the subject. IndiBoy 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Fact 2 needs to be included
Wrong claim 1 in the article
Wrong claim 2 in the article

Etymology of the word Kashmir

All editors who are going to have problems with the inclusion of the etymology of the name of the region Kashmir in the introduction may kindly tell it beforehand. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Okay, here I have a few suggestions to offer on the Early History section:

The history of Kashmir does not start with the Dogra princes, which belong to the modern period. Can anyone explain or provide references for this assertion: "The name Kashmir came to be applied to this region as a result of the activities of the Dogra princes."  ?

Here is how 2005 Enyclopedia Britannica starts its section on the history of Kashmir:

According to legend, an ascetic named Kashyapa reclaimed the land now comprising Kashmir from a vast lake. That land came to be known as Kashyapamar and, later, Kashmir. Buddhism was introduced by the Mauryan emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BC, and from the 9th to the 12th century AD the region appears to have achieved considerable prominence as a centre of Hindu culture.

Apart from this, the ancient Greeks called it "Kasperia" and the Chinese pilgrim Hien-Tsang who visited the valley around 631 A. D. called it KaShi-Mi-Lo, and has mentioned it in extensive details. He supposedly stayed for two years in Kashmir. The Gilgit Manuscripts may also be mentioned.

Kashmir has a long history which needs to be covered. It has been under the Mauryans, Kushans, Indo-Scythians, etc. Gonanda, Karkota ,Utpal and Shah-Miri dynasties were also remarkable. Apart from Mughal rule, the region was also under Afghan dependency from 1752 - 1819. This was followed by Sikh rule from 1819-46. Only then come the Dogras. We would like to see some evidence that the name Kashmir is due to the Dogras. 130.203.202.156 29 June 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Could you write down a small section? I think it is worth having in the article. IndiBoy 30 June 2005 04:37 (UTC)

Cashmere

There is no mention of cashmere.

Movies

I read that many Bollywood movies are filmed in the green areas of Kashmir. However because of the recent unsafe situation, some are set in Kashmir but filmed in Switzerland.

islam the religion of peace????

My mind is not able to accept the fact that islam is a religion of tolerance,humanity,love etc. why? Let me elucidate it :-

islam is the only religion which is spread through force or by giving some benefits to man as they will force woman & children to convert to islam.The benfits include four time marriage,divorce can be done by saying "divorce-divorce-divorce" & you can "buy" another girl & force her to marry with you by giving some money to her father.muhammad himself married to a 9 year girl when he is 60 year old fat ball (Yes muhammad is a pedophile).

Some of the ugliest punishments is reserved for islam like beating to death a woman or man by stoning(as this is happening is various muslim nations),beheading,lashes etc.

Womans are treated like animals & there job is restricted only to give birth to as many childs as they can(untill she dies giving birth to yet another child).They are forced to wear "burqas" in public & to have a white plaster on face in home.

These all things attract only those people from a society who thinks that this is the "opportunity" to satisfy there desires.They are ofthen those individuals who have lowest ethics in life.

And why muslims are spread all over the world? ,The reason is that as all societies in the world have some real opportunitists,cowards in some number then only those choose this religion,this is unlike HINDUS & SIKHS who are mainly concentrated in south asia initially(Now they are going to other parts of the world).

Now some of the muslims are even not fully confident about islam, they know that in todays world practicing this religion in it's full version is not possible so they have created there own version and labeled it as "tolerent islam" that means that even they also knows that islam is not tolerent in it's full version.

How is it possible that you pick one thing from islam as per your convenience like only jehad is picked up by muslims all around the world.

Today even muslim don't trust another muslim(not to talk about another religions) most notabley is the numerous fighting between muslim countries & muslim groups like iran-iraq,balochistan-pakistan etc.This is why they are not able to achieve muslim ummah or unity of muslims.

Only muslims are fighting in all around the world(as they are intolerent towards another religions) name it chechanya,palestine etc.As long as they are in minority they live quietly only waiting for an opportunity to come.And also multiplying there numbers(thanks to 4 marrigies & 10 childs per marrige).Then they start the fight for a separate homeland.

One more mystery waiting to be demystified - How long can islam survives in this century ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.0.83.45 (talk • contribs) 17:09 3 June.

Go suck your cock, you cow dung eating motherfucker. An inbred, Aids-infested homo like you has no business shoving his filthy worm ridden ass where it doesn't belong. This page is about Kashmir - if you want to drop your pants and show everyone how tiny that pathetic thing you call your dick is, then do it some place else. And after pulling your head out from your ass, go drink some cow pee.

Crazy Little Woman 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and take this rant elsewhere. Try to pick up fight with someone else. This page is about Kashmir, in case you haven't bothered to notice. --Ragib 3 July 2005 18:13 (UTC)

May we be in harmony with our kinfolk, in harmony with strangers; do ye, O Asvins, establish here agreement among us! -- (Atharva Veda VII-52.1) 209.158.27.43 4 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)

I'm Actual kashmiri, the rest of you should not be commenting about my people. The vast majority of this is not true at all. There are too many speculations. I see no section on the Abhorent treatment of Kashmiri's by the Indian army in this, in fact their is no mention of the biggest problem in Indian-controlled kashmir which is Gang rapes by the Indian army on entire villages of women. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.30.2.164 (talk • contribs) 3:22 21 July 2005 UTC.

For the Pakistani Sock Puppets, Pseudo-Kashmiris, Fanatics and pseudo Human rights organizations

Please check out the URL : http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/international/asia/18stan.html

Quoting from the above news : " LAHORE, Pakistan, July 17 - The Pakistani military said Sunday that it had killed 17 people, including women and children ... "

Check out the URL http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-436es.html. Quoting from there ...

"It was a result of tactical considerations aimed at limiting the losses that Islamabad would suffer because of the collapse of the friendly Taliban regime in Kabul..."

Wondering what real Kashmiris think about the prospects of turning their current paradise into a Taliban waterhole?

And since London bombings is in news ... Check out the URL : http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Pakistan-focus-of-London-bombings-probe/2005/07/20/1121539035189.html?oneclick=true

Again quoting from above " Britain is pressuring Pakistan's government to clamp down on madrassas - or religious schools - that are suspected of spreading extremist ideology."

QED —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.83.184 (talk • contribs) 4:59, 21 July 2005 UTC.

For the pseudo-secular Indians: It does not matter whether Pakistan does this or Pakistan does that. The fact remains, that Hindus/Indians have no respect for human life, especially if that human life happens to be of someone who is a Kashmiri. If it's a woman Kashmiri, hindu soldiers cannot help but unzip their pants and attack them wherever and whenever they see an opportunity. It's obvious from the filth hindu Bollywood produces, that a major portion of that hell hole known as India, is sexually starved. So, by full backing of the indian sockpuppet so-called elected government of Kashmir, they rape, and then they rape some more and then they think of how sexy their mommy is, and then they rape even more, day in and day out. But apparently they can never be satisfied. But have no fear: as soon as the messes in Iraq & Afghanistan are cleared up, they will be taken care of, once and for all.

How utterly hindu/shameful of you to drag the horrors occuring in London and trying to pin it on destitute people who attend Pakistani madrassahs (madrassah means 'place of learning'). These people, most of whom are mere kids, have parents too broke to send them to normal schools, so they send them to free Pakistani madrassas. They can't even afford a decent meal, and you're telling me they somehow were able to mastermind intercontinental sophisticated, terrorist attacks a world apart? I don't think so. So stop your stupid lies.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence that the London Police has any bloody idea who did what or what's going on. Have you seen the suspect pix released today? NONE OF THEM LOOKS LIKE A PAKISTANI. One looks white, the other black, another with the rucksack, positively looks INDIAN and not Pakistani, and the fourth looks like a hindu. I'm beginning to wonder, if these attacks were not orchestrated by bloody hindus? The Village Idiot 22:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

One looks like an Indian and the other looks like a Hindu??? LOL, in case you forgot most pakistani muslims were hindus once and were converted by force into islam, all indians and pakistanis look alike cause ultimately they are all the same. Stop talking liek a moron and respect the lives taken by terrorists in London.

Talk page bloat

This talk page is getting huge, so may be it's time to archive parts of it? Another thing that could be consider is to remove the rant posted in the section above ... while rant on a related issue is fine by me, attacks on religions and race, and obscene comments are not. So either archive the page's bloated comments or remove the big, hate-ful sections. The rants have very little to do with Kashmir. --Ragib 6 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Note, I meant this comment for admins ... consider it please. --Ragib 6 July 2005 08:22 (UTC)

I know its bulky but much of it was posted during or slightly before the lock. It would be better to bulk archive instead of selective archive for the sake of continuum. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 9, 2005 06:08 (UTC)

unprotected

I have unprotected the page. It is still a POV article, and anyone interested in cleaning it up is most welcome. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Religious intolerence, hatred, insecurity, ignorance, bias and unawareness, as expressed by many users in their comments above, are exactly the reasons why the Indo-Pak Kashmir dispute remains unresolved to date.

nichalp, do you have a plan for ensuring that the page is not hijacked by persons who fall in the above category?

inserting opinions by anon

Anon 24.6.83.184 (talk · contribs) has inserted the following line:

At the same time suicide bombers blowing off innocent civilians is not considered Human Rights Abuse

Frankly, this sounds like a comment or opinion, which is quite contrary to the idea of an encyclopedia. The line above implies "They" don't consider this .... you don't really write such opinions in an encyclopedia article. So, add comments in the proper section and add facts not something that sounds like opinions. And please, sign your talk page comments. Thanks. --Ragib 06:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Before you jump into reverting that again, I'd like to mention that there is no problem if you have referenced links to facts/news relevant to the article. Just don't make the article look like a blog. Thanks. --Ragib 06:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as wikipedia supports anon contributions, that tradition will be honoured. Coming to your question, what is mentioned as "abuse" is wholly one-sided. The other side of abuses by the "rebels" is not mentioned. The POV is blatant. There are enough articles out there that establishes where those "rebels" come from and how they are trained to kill innocents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.83.184 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 July 2005 UTC.

Anon, I think my statements above do not question your edits, or the fact that you are not logged on. The question is the matter of sentence construction, I have not questioned any facts. The sentence above sounds like an opinion, if you reword it into presentation of a fact, there is actually no problem. You can't really place a sentence that sounds like some person is griping about what "They" did etc etc. Just reword it to make it encyclopedic. And please sign your messages. Thanks. --Ragib 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of content

I was looking into the huge monologue on the "Claims to Kashmir" section, and it looked completely incoherent, and somewhat a dump from various persons. What does Pakistan's internal "prosecution of minorities", "Lowering of minority population" have to do with this section, let alone this article? Also, what is really the significance of the statistics on India, Pakistan and Indonesia's muslim population and rankings? Next, what is the meaning of putting Azim Premzi/Wipro etc there!!! What on earth Mr. Premji has in common with Kashmir? Seemed like someone took a collection of rants/opinions/monologues from the Internet and pasted them here.

As a person not affiliated with either of India/Pakistan, I would propose to present facts and shorten the section only to that: India claims Kashmir for this, Pakistan claims that, and Kashmiri people claim whatever they do. This section really should not speculate why any country's claim should prevail over any other one. For references to terrorist activities, that should be brief, and most content should go to Terrorism in Kashmir.

How does that sound as a plan? This article is a hot area for a flame war/edit war, so I don't want to touch it without having a big discussion from all parties here. But I guess everyone would agree to the irrelevance of the most of the contents of this bloated section, which is almost completely incoherent at its present state. So, please give your opinions on that. Thanks. --Ragib 22:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon reading the talk page's comments above, I realized that this has been a big issue in the past, and caused huge flames/rants. Let's be constructive this time, and make a balanced, polished section. --Ragib 22:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Too much, or should I say 80% of the current article dwells on history, and accusations of India/Pakistan against each other. I think the article needs to be organized properly, and duplication of content should be discarded. Also, some relevant, but missing sections need to be there. I added stubs for Economy, Demographics etc sections. Other sections may be included. Kashmir is one of the most beautiful places in South Asia, it is a shame that the article is now a incoherent rant/counter-rant ... rather than focusing on information about the land, people and the cultural heritage. --Ragib 07:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Over 50 years after independence, the Indians still have a slave mentality

Mr. Singh goes to D.C. And what does he do when he gets there? He bad mouths next door neighbor Pakistan. The scene is a lot like a kindergarten playground, where a 5 year old little girl in pigtails runs off to the teacher to snitch on another little girl. Observe the following fictional girl I'll call little Miss Piggy in an all too common scenario in real life playgrounds of the world:

"Teacher, teacher, you know what Jenny just did?" Miss Piggy asks the teacher triumphantly, her face beaming.

"What?" her teacher asks irritated.

"She peed in the bushes again, hehehehe". Miss Piggy diligently points where Jenny is answering the call to nature, as she continues her infuriating giggling.

Expecting the teacher to go running after bad old Jenny, for peeing where she wasn't supposed to, she looks up eagerly at the teacher, her face now flush with anticipation.

"Oh, this is gonna be sooooo goooood!" Miss Piggy thinks to herself.

But instead of investigating Jenny's bad deeds, the teacher pulls out a Colt 45 and points it at little Miss Piggy's face. Just as Miss Piggy tries to open her mouth to say something, the teacher presses the trigger and blows poor Miss Piggy's fucking brains out. A headless Miss Piggy falls to the ground - as all the surrounding children break out in cheers accompanied by a thunderous applause.

Upon hearing the gunshot, the principal comes rushing out to the playground in a panic.

"Oh my God, what have you done?" He frantically asks the teacher.

"Oh nothing...I just shot Miss Piggy". The teacher calmly replies, smiling to the Principal.

"Oh, Ok. Never mind. Good job. I should've done it myself, a long time ago." The principal says happily and heads back to his office, whistling,

Glory glory Man United, Glory glory Man United...

as Miss Piggy's cold dead body languishes in the playground, a lone bee buzzing over it.

The fictional scenario illustrates this point: Manmohan Singh goes to D.C. and complains about and bad mouths Pakistan. Doesn't he know that the only reason US even spits on his face is because US wants to counter balance China? The US knows EVERYTHING that Pakistan has done and it doesn't care about it. If tomorrow Pakistan launched a preemptive strike on India and erased it from the face of the planet, the US won't give a fuck about it.

Listen to me Mr. Manmohan and understand this: The US does not give one fuck about India. Your shit country has to live with Pakistan. It has no choice in the matter. Instead of acting with some dignity, you go and prove that you ara after all a bloody sikh, with his head firmly lodged way up his filthy worm ridden ass.

You also expose your continued slave mentality. And the fact that you do NOT know how to speak English. The world had a much better image of you - UNTIL YOU OPENED THAT BIG FUCKING MOUTH of yours. Next time, have some self respect and don't go to far away places only to snitch on Pakistan, when you know full well, that the US relationship with Pakistan is the strongest it has EVER been in history. Do you know what all those bored white men in congress were silently thinking while pretending to listen to your god awful and incredibly stupid speech? They were thinking, "Oh, shut up, you stupid taliban with your stupid taliban turban." Next time, just keep your trap shut - it'll do you a whole lot of good. Please don't let your ass do the talking for you again. The Village Idiot 04:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Shut Up You Na-pakistani.

U dont know what are you writing u idiot.Feed it in your brain that INDIA IS A SECULAR DEMOCRACY.It's a fact & if you dont accept it then it's your fault paki.

While we dont need any certificate from pakis on our secular credentials but since this is just a forum Let me elucidate it to you that why INDIA is a secular country.

INDIA is a heterogeneous country which is composed of various Religions,Castes,Tribes,Ethinic Composition etc.And to remain a viable & united country INDIA demands equality,tolerance & fair play for all of them & to provide this we've got a constitution which gives direction on how to handle this heterogeneous society & clearly direct that state should not discriminate on the bases of Religion,faith etc.,since it's very much a personal matter & untill it remains a personal matter.Even poor caste people are given 25%(as per there % of population in total) quota in all vacancies filled by Govt. of INDIA.

USA is also a constitutionaly a secular country but there is great suspicion for blacks in USA even celebrities like oprah winfrey are not spared of discrimination does that mean america is not a good country for blacks to live? NO!.Because constitutionaly there is enough safeguards for blacks.The all powerfull Condy Rice once said that "I may be subjected to discrimination for a job to sell food at MacDonald but I can Become President of this Country" This speaks volumes about the country & the importance of counstitution in a country.

Same is true for INDIA where they can feel little discriminated by a handful of people (who are not willing to see the change in the society & wants to go back to stone ages) but they can become the President,Prime Minister of this great Country.

Let me write the name of some personalities & there Caste,Religions etc.

1.Manmohan Singh (Sikh) - Prime Minister of INDIA

2.K.R. Narayan (Dalit) - President of INDIA from 1997-2002

3.Giani Zail Singh (Sikh) - President of INDIA from 1982-1987

4.Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (Muslim) - President of INDIA from 1974-1977

5.Dr.Zakir Hussain (Muslim) - President of INDIA from 1967-1969

6.Dr.Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam (Muslim) - Current President

And there are numerous other examples & writing all of them is impossible.

For a simple paki it is impossible to imagine a society as tolerant as INDIAN one, where the Racists are sidelined quikly as we've seen in the case of BJP & it's Agenda.And also all those people who wants to divide this amazinglly tolerant society for there own vested interests the likes of APHC & SIMI and all those who think that they are fighting for the cause of Muslims but failing pathetically.Why they are not doing anything about china's muslims in xinjiang who are subjected to live in like a non-believer in that atheist state.Simple chinese dont allow them to criticise there nation as they are doing in the open society of INDIA for decades.

You should also look yourself in mirror and ask yourself that is this the pakistan of your deams.

Put your house in order first, only then dare to throw stones on others.

overly explosive topic?

perhaps this entry should just be put on hold, with the majority of the sections blanked, as they're obviously not very neutral.

this article is not informative, in fact it's a downright pain in the ass. any casual user who comes to this article actually seeking knowledge will be met by this rude discussion page and ..not really much else. is it really worth it?

those of you proclaiming the "truth" for your respective country - how has posting on an encyclopedia website helped your cause?

and those of you NPOV crusaders, take a step back and think - what would Switzerland do? - glerf 05:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol. Switzerland? They have a NPOV alright. NO Point Of View, that is. what do those forever dithering mountain goats have to do with a neutral point of view? since when do they even have a view of the world. tucked away high in the alps it's easy to preach when nations have not sought to attack you or when borders are clearly defined. if you want to make a controversial topic such as this neutral it is going to take time and patience. Idleguy 15:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. What would Switzerland do? Maintain "neutrality" by funding the Nazis and spying for the Allies. Oh! and come out with sleazy banking rules to hide blood money of the world and then preach about neutrality. Encyclopedia is the percursor of history and one it is mentioned in an encyclopedia, the content wether it is true or not is repeated and referenced ad naseum. Hence the battleground for various sock puppets. [[User:Abhijna|Abhijna]

India is a secular hypocracy (not democracy)

You know I've been reading in these pages on wikipedia the repeated claim that India is a secular democracy. And I couldn't understand that how can an illegal occupier of land in Kashmir ( as judged by the United Nations resolutions), can claim to be a democracy, until I bought the Indian Dictionary of Standard English to find out what the definition of democracy is in India. This is what it says in the Indian Dictionary of Standard English under the defintion of democracy:

Democracy: a system of government that publicly characterises its policies or actions in a manner contradictory to the actual purposes and/or effects of those policies or actions. (from Gr. Demo-: to pretend, put on a show + Gr. -cracy: strength, to govern), democracy (noun) An illegal of occupation of land that does not belong to a country. Also see: hypocracy (synonym).

And then I said to myself, Oh I see, that's what they mean by democracy. Now it all makes sense.

So, from now on, whenver you read,

India is a secular democracy,

substitute it with,

India is a secular hypocracy.

Hi there, From your rude interpretation above, I know its next to impossible to change your view on the secular fabric of India. I dont blame you for your thoughts because you have to come and live in India to understand how the system works here.

I am myself an Indian from Chennai (earlier called Madras) which is in Southern India and can be described as the heartland of dravidian culture. We, 'Madrasis' differ from our northern, western and eastern Indian bretheren in ALL aspects of life. We look different, our lifestyle is different, our language is different and in some cases even religion. Will you believe if I said that most people in my state can't understand the National language - Hindi? Yet, we consider ourselves Indian.

I do not say that India is perfect. We have our own problems. We have had to deal with Babri Masjid, Gujarat, Punjab (Sikh suppression), LTTE (tamil nadu and northern srilanka) and insurgency in our eastern states. But with all these issues, we have stood the test of time. Whenever you point out the negative aspects of secularism in India, the above mentioned incidents are the ones you mention. But inspite of all that, you will find that Sikhs are the ones who are most patriotic in India. Conduct a poll and you will find that almost all Indian Muslims will want to stay in India (even given a chance of moving to pakistan). If the right wing Hindu parties like the BJP tried to infuse communal tension, it was predominantly Hindu-yet-secular India that drove them off power.

A standing example of the secular fabric of this country is the fact that it has a Roman Catholic woman leading the party in power at the Indian Union with a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President - all the the healm of affairs in Hindu majority India. We love Abdul Kalam, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi as much as we do Vajpayee (who you must know that most Indians feel is the 'right man in the wrong party').

So, hereafter when you talk of Kashmir, please dont invoke religion. Given the problems India has had from the Pakistan's policy of bleeding India to death followed by Bangladesh - a hotbed of terrorism, LTTE and its suicide bombers in the south all supplemented by an unstable monarchy in the only Hindu kingdom in the world and a an aggresive dragon to the north of it, any person woth the right senses would certify it to be a secular. Again I say - it may not be perfect. But it is improving.

With your claims on religion, think for a second on how well Pakistan or Bangladesh have fared with an Islamic regime? It is often termed as a failed state that envies the development of its wealthy neighbor. If you need to talk about religion again, talk when your country is doing well and does not depend on America and China for money - all of which it throws in madrassas, weapons and terrorists anyway.

Hope this helps clear things up a bit. :) The Village Idiot 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)