|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmir conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.
Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
|Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not commit personal attacks. Be patient as approaching solution to any issues, peaceful and fair per wikiquette. If consensus is not reached, other solutions – e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard – exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or sound on the vexed question.|
|This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.|
|This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|A lot of the discussion about disputes and problems with the article can be found at Talk:Kashmir.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kashmir conflict was copied or moved into UN mediation of Kashmir with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
@Owais Khursheed: by the statistics that you yourself included, 87% of the Srinagar population want independence, and 3% want to join Pakistan. Syed Ali Shah Geelani is in this 3%. By what measure do you claim that he represents "Kashmiri views" ?
Poonch-Rajouri in the 1965 war
@Faizan: this edit summary: "This is part of 1965 war. If you still disagree I will have to take it to dispute resolution edit summary", is quite inadequate to the issue raised. It may be part of the 1965 war, but this article is not about the 1965 war. I said in my revert that it is not part of the India-Pakistan conflict (in the context of Kashmir). It could be part of the Internal Conflict, for which there is another section. But, then again, you would need to show how it is part of the overall conflict. You cannot just stick random bits of information in an already very long article just because you believe it is important. You need to show the RS that highlight its importance, or you have to argue here as to how it is important.
- I have created a new sub-section on the page on 1965 war where refugees will be mentioned. That will deal with Kashmir refugees as well as refugees in other parts of the subcontinent. On this page there is no suitable section to talk about refugees from the 1965 war except the section about the 1965 war. I do not agree that such a thing can go under internal conflict. There is nothing about the 1965 war in internal conflict. This is a war event and the best place to write about it is under the war. Faizan (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- You still haven't answered the question: how is this part of India-Pakistan conflict? Yes, wars do hurt people, and the Indian army might have done a poor job in this instance. But did it impact the India-Pakistan conflict? If so, how?
- Everything that happened during the 1965 war cannot go here. You need to address the WP:WEIGHT issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have not found a rule saying that everything under India-Pakistan conflict must discuss effect of each event on relations. For instance, I have also added Mirpur Massacre of 1947 even as I cannot find any WP:RS indicating that event's effect on relations between India and Pakistan. I inserted it because it is an offshoot to the main events. Faizan (talk) 11:13, April 7, 2017
- As I mentioned in my last edit summary, I too have a similar objection about the content's weight in that place. As Faizan said, it has to be certainly documented in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 article. But in this much broader article that deals with the Kashmir conflict and under the section of India - Pakistan conflict, I don't think, a whole para, explicitly about internal refugees of a war, has be inserted. Regarding Mirpur massacre in the article, it also has no effect on the conflict. But it is mentioned only in one line, so I don't object to its weight. — TylerDurden10 (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2CANNUALREPORT%2CIND%2C%2C4a6452aa2d%2C0.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1720/17200800.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430022351/http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/28/amnesty-international-cites-human-rights-abuse-in-kashmir to http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/28/amnesty-international-cites-human-rights-abuse-in-kashmir
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-1172%281998%29.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article3013556.ece
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1051%3Astones-and-psyches&catid=7%3Aeditorial&Itemid=8
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090311/j%26k.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4863%3Ahurriyat-g-launches-quit-kashmir-stir-with-hartal&catid=15%3Atop-news&Itemid=2
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-us%2Bto%2Bsign%2B20%2Bbillion%2Baccords%2Bwith%2Bindia--bi-07
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://acdis.illinois.edu/publications/207/publication-The-Future-of-Kashmir.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sasnet.lu.se/ishtiaqkashmir.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Nehru quote from Taya Zinkin
Content from the Dixon Plan section for discussion
@Mamta Jagdish Dhody: can you please explain your rationale for including this quote in the Dixon Plan section? Please note that Balraj Madhok does not qualify as a WP:HISTRS. Our section says that Nehru had proposed a partition-cum-plebiscite plan, sourced to proper historians, whereby a plebiscite would be held only in the Kashmir Valley. What is this quote saying with regard to that? Was it said before the proposal or after? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The basis to all my edits is resolving the heinous crime situation in India, wherein comes the dirty "STONE AGE WAR", in Kashmir! Anyone who has contributed significantly to absolve it comes in my focus, including Balraj Madhok and, how I can add my knowledge to it with reference. If you are a serious editor you must have noted the steady build up of all wikipedia articles as per the relevant present from past history. Blogs are not acceptable to wikipedia, in spite of the fact that they present an independent analysis of the present times.
What all has been done for Kashmir cannot be put down on this talk page! Only if we focus on what is creating the trouble there, can we zero down on the main contributors to the peace of this heaven on earth, which in ancient times used to be a place where old people and the sick liked to retire to, for convalescing, spiritual healing. Religion is not an issue in Kashmir which earns from tourism. Crime is, as well as Strategic defence. Nehruji and Taya Zinkin, come in here. Please do not however make it an issue of his political inheritors, unless they are ready to focus on these two issues! Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This ending makes one laugh :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Age#/media/File:Dolmenmontebubbonia.jpg Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Nehru did agree to a plebiscite in the Kashmir valley, leaving the Pakistan-held areas untouched. So, whatever may the truth of the statement he made to Taya Zinkin, it has been superseded. So, this statement doesn't belong here.
- Your blogger by the way is plagiarising from A. G. Noorani. The original is here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Its ok. I make edits to increase your knowledge base, even if it is not original - at least it will lead to the original, and one can always refer to it. See the article on —war torn Kashmir— whose legacy nestles from the Hindu Kush started from here and Canada :- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&oldid=26826963 . In my perspective, which will not align with yours maybe, it is related to these articles.
The entire Kashmir conflict is India's past and future, that one has to live with and can never leave as it is in the roots of an ancient civilization. Mamta Jagdish Dhody (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah! What's happening here? I don't think this discussion is being any objective. Mamta Jagdish Dhody, you have to seriously consider refraining from engaging in WP:OR. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Iftikhar Malik quotation
The following text was inserted in the Dixon Plan section quoting Iftikhar Malik, a pro-Pakistan scholar.
The point of this appears to be merely to throw mud at Nehru, because no "lie" is mentioned. Dixon apparently doubted whether Nehru was representing the Cabinet and the public opinion or fighting his own lone battle. It hasn't been explained what was the basis of this. While I don't mind somebody properly analysing Nehru's intentions, I don't think this scholar has any credentials to do it.
His assertion that Liaquat Ali Khan was willing to concede the Chenab formula during the summit is false, as evidenced by many sources. Liaquat was pushing for a plebiscite in all of J&K without an attendant Pakistani withdrawal while also asking for the removal of Shekh Abdullah. After the failure of the summit, Nehru proposed partition-cum-plebiscite, and Dixon tried to persuade Liaquat in a separate visit to Karachi in August 1950. It was at the point that Dixon proposed the Chenab formula (for Jammu province only). Liaquat apparently accepted it then, but with the condition that Sheikh Abdullah should be removed. Noorani states that Abdullah's removal would not have been acceptable to anybody in India, whether the Cabinet or the public opinion. Iftikhar Malik's analysis is entirely substandard. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I did some detailed reading over this. It does appear that Nehru's stance was inconsistent, going by the criticism in various reputable sources. Some particularly relevant extracts:
This one from Francis Pike while mentioning Dixon supports the contention that Nehru was deliberately stalling so as to avoid the plebiscite, and wanted to strengthen hold over the territory:
The reason for Nehru's failure to implement a plebiscite for Kashmir are worth analysing. Nehru's insistence that the popular will should be exercised in Junagadh and Hyderabad, and his failure to implement this solution in Jammu and Kashmir, was obviously grossly hypocritical. Quite simply, his fear of losing a plebiscite, and with it Kashmir, was not something he was prepared to concede...This position was reinforced by Nehru's refusal to sanction a United Nations Commission under Admiral Nimitz, to arbitrate a staged withdrawal of the armed forces of both sides. A further attempt to mediate a Kashmir solution saw the United Nations appoint an Australian lawyer, Sir Owen Dixon, to report on the problem. He also concluded that a fair plebiscite could not be held as long as Indian troops occupied Kashmir. By now it was clear to most observers that Nehru was filibustering for time, in the knowledge that the longer India occupied Kashmir, the more unlikely it was that the status quo would ever be changed. Nehru himself observed in August 1952 that 'Our general outlook should be such as to make people think that the association of Kashmir state with India is an accomplished fact and nothing is going to undo it.
Robert J. McMahon corroborates that position, concerning the use of a plebiscite promise as a delaying mechanism:
Increasingly, American officials blamed India for the impasse. They believed that India, in rejecting the UNCIP's various truce proposals on dubious legal technicalities, was simply trying to avoid a plebiscite. They were right. Since India was already in possession of the most desirable portion of Kashmir, and since the overwhelming Muslim majority in the state made a vote to join Pakistan the most likely outcome of a fair referendum, a postponement of the plebiscite clearly served India's interests. Some Indian officials admitted candidly to their American counterparts that they would find a partition of Kashmir preferable to a plebiscite. If a plebiscite is postponed to the indefinite future, Nimitz observed astutely, India will have the opportunity of so consolidating her position on the contested area that the conditions of a 'fair' plebiscite may never exist.
Furthermore, academic Hassan Abbas writes that Nehru repeatedly changed his words on the plebiscite well into the 1960s:
On May 10, 1954, Nehru, while addressing the Indian Council of States, had said: India, honestly and sincerely, does not want to tarnish its image in the world, and it is high time that the tyranny and brutalisation in the valley must cease. Kashmir is neither an inseparable nor an integral part of India...[India] must accept the facts and start making arrangements for allowing the people of the disputed territory to exercise their inalienable right of self-determination. It was astonishing, however, that Nehru tried to wriggle out of the promised plebiscite in 1961 by saying, There is no question of any plebiscite in Kashmir, now or later. I am sick of the talk about plebiscite, which does not interest anybody. That was not all. In August 1963 he changed his stance yet again, when he met Pakistan's foreign minister in New Delhi, and the resulting communique of their talks clearly stated that the Kashmir dispute would be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir...by a fair and impartial plebiscite. Nothing came of this as well...India had taken a very long and tortuous route to shift from a position of hypocrisy to one of truth...Countless attempts at a solution of the Kashmir problem had foundered on the rock of Indian transigence even while officially it held to the pledge of plebiscite...
- I am not sure where we are going with this. I have admitted a long time ago that the doubts about whether Nehru was ever sincere about the plebiscite in Kashmir will persist. The footnote 101 documents some such doubts. You are welcome to add more if you wish. But the main body of the article is based on Mahesh Shankar's thorugh analysis based on published statements of Nehru. He documents exactly when Nehru changed his mind and why. Some people might suspect that he changed his mind much earlier. The British and American diplomats could have leaned on Pakistan to demilitarise Azad Kashmir and called Nehru's bluff. But nobody did. So we will never know the truth of these speculations.
- As far as the subject matter at hand is concerned, Nehru gave written submission to Owen Dixon proposing plebiscite in the Valley and the rest of the state partitioned through negotiation. The combined response from Dixon and Liaquat Ali Khan was, "yes, but only if Sheikh Abdullah is made to step down". There ended the Dixon initiative. If there is some lie in any of this, it needs to be stated and documented. We are not going to put up with vague innuendo. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Mountbatten & Gurdaspur
@NadirAli:, I am reverting your addition to the Partition and invasion section, which reads as follows:
It is out of order and completely undue. The passage preceding it states that the Maharaja had decided to be independent and this was communicated by the prime minister Ram Chandra Kak to Mountbatten, and Indian and Pakistani leaders in unequivocal terms on 23 July. So, what happened earlier is of no consequence, and what Mountbatten thought is entirely inconsequential because it wasn't his decision.
The Gurdaspur District issue is a red herring. What matters is the Pathankot tehsil, which contained India's land route to Kashmir and it happened to be Hindu majority. Had the Pathankot tehsil been awarded to Pakistan, all hell would have broken loose. But it wasn't. What happened to the other two tehsils has no bearing on the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Many historians such as Alistair lamb say Mountbatten influenced the Radcliffe commission on Nehru’s urging so that India could access Kashmir through Gurdaspur which should have gone to Pakistan. If its in the sources and repeated by a number of historians its relevant. Even if Pathankot was the only tehsil not given to Pakistan India still would not have gained access to Kashmir because Muslim majority tehsils Batala and Gurdaspur would block India’s access. These tehsils were given to India. Shireen Ilahi does not counter this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
There are two issues that should be separated:
- Whether the awarding of Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils to India affected the Kashmir conflict.
- Whether Mountbatten influenced the Radcliffe award in this instance.
For the second issue (Mountbatten), yes, there have been many speculations about it, but no conclusive evidence. Until there is such, that discussion does not belong in this article. It can go in the Radcliffe Line article though.
As to the first issue, the railway line to Pathankot went through Batala and Gurdaspur tehsils, but there were separate road connections to Pathankot that did not go through these tehsils. So, to argue that these tehsils were pertinent to Kashmir, it should be shown that the railway lines were crucial. Do you have such a source? Since there was no railway between Pathankot and Kashmir and the road that existed was an abysmal one, India was able to manage a poor communication line from Pathankot to Kashmir. So, how is it possible that a good roadway to Pathankot wasn't good enough? This seems to be a highly dubious argument. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- You say, Shireen Ilahi does not counter this. Quite disingenuous. Here it is in black and white:
Both Lamb and Ziegler, and the historians that side with either one or the other, seem to forget the crucial point that the consensus records have already illuminated - only Pathankot tehsil was of consequence to Indian access to Kashmir (by road) and its non-Muslim majority placed it solidly on the Indian side of the line.
- Her entire article is devoted to refuting the non-arguments of Lamb and co. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- To Kautilya3: Many historians such as Alistair lamb say Mountbatten influenced the Radcliffe commission on Nehru’s urging so that India could access Kashmir through Gurdaspur which should have gone to Pakistan. If its in the sources and repeated by a number of historians its relevant. Even if Pathankot was the only tehsil not given to Pakistan India still would not have gained access to Kashmir because Muslim majority tehsils Batala and Gurdaspur would block India’s access. These tehsils were given to India. Shireen Ilahi does not counter this.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
To Kautilya3: Yes, there were other roads connecting Pathankot that didn't pass through Batala and Gurdaspur Tehsils, for example the Pathankot-Dunera and Pathankot-Palampur cart roads, but it was (and still is) Pathankot that was the major Rail-head in Punjab that provided main access to the hilly areas of (now) Himachal Pradesh from Punjab, and not the other way around. Had Gurdaspur and Batala not been given to India along with Pathankot, it would have taken years, if not decades, for India to construct a reliable all weather rail/road infrastructure in its northern hilly areas to connect to Pathankot, and then onwards to Jammu. Shereen Ilahi, whoever she is, has completely missed the point. Lamb and co (sic) didn't argue that it was 'impossible' for India to annex Kashmir had Gurdaspur district been transferred to Pakistan, they argued that the controversial award of Muslim majority Gurdaspur district to India made the (otherwise non-viable) accession of Kashmir to India 'feasible' . Also, Shereen Ilahi is 'assuming' that the Pathankot tehsil was to be transferred to India anyway as its non-Muslim majority placed it solidly on the Indian side of the line. She has ignored the fact that in the `notional' award attached to the Indian Independence Act, all of Gurdaspur District was marked as Pakistan, and later, several Muslim majority tehsils were handed over to India. So Ms. Ilahi is making a baseless "assumption" here. Samm19 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The 'Gurdaspur district' was not awarded to India. Three tehsils out of four were awarded to India. If I recall correctly, Wavell's line gave all of the Gurdaspur district to India. (You say it was "rejected", but by whom?) However, whether it was "rejected" or not is not the point. Whatever reasons made Wavell give Gurdaspur district to India, didn't disappear by the time Radcliffe came on the scene? So, the theory that Mountbatten was conspiring with India to influence the award is very weak. Unlike Radcliffe, Wavell did explain the reasons for his award. You can go and read them.
- If I were Radcliffe, I would say that the district is roughly 50-50 Muslim vs. non-Muslim. I know that population exchange is taking place. So, perhaps I would want to give half of it to India and half to Pakistan. But, unfortunately, the Gurdaspur's tehsils were stacked on top of each other along the north-south axis rather than east-west axis. So, there was no clean way to divide them 50-50. Giving three tehsils to India would preserve the railway line and canals. That seems visibly unfair to Pakistan. Perhaps I could make it up by giving some other territory to Pakistan in exchange.
- That could have been the reasoning that went on with Radcliffe. There is no Kashmir here and no Mountbatten either. Whoever wants to make theories needs to address all such issues. Shereen Ilahi is doing that. Bangash is just repeating the standard Pakistani gripes without rhyme or reason. That is not scholarly at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The 'notional' award is precisely what the name says. It was notional. It was a rough and ready line drawn for the purpose of illustration to the British Parliament, as part of passing the Indian Independence Act. If the notional award was to be the final one, there would have been no need for a Boundary Commission at all. So there is no point discussing the notional award. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, interestingly, an explicit denial has been given:
Lord Radcliffe has denied that access to Kashmir and Jammu was at any time of the 'other factors' affecting the award.
- So, I am afraid idle speculations won't do. Some solid evidence is necessary to make any headway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- To Kautilya3: Wavell's plan was rejected by HMG; The British Cabinet in Jan 1947. Wavell was a strong proponent of united India and his whole idea of 'breakdown' was meant to make Pakistan small, weak and unattractive for Jinnah. Wavell in his breakdown plan did mention that his 'proposal' of giving Gurdaspur to India was, of course, negotiable. There is a reason for which Wavell never acknowledged that Punjab was partitioned according to his breakdown plan. But that is another debate.
- The point is, you are rejecting the opinion of Mr. Bangash, an Oxonian currently serving as Assistant Professor of history at one of the most prestigious universities in Pakistan, and deriding him as "not scholarly" and trying to present Ms. Shereen Ilahi (whoever she is) as a true scholar, just because the views held by the former are opposed to your own and the latter agrees with you. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion but removing/deleting properly referenced content from wikipedia just because you don't agree with it, or personally find it 'not scholarly', is not very 'neutral', and if I am not mistaken, wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. As already pointed out by @NadirAli:, If an opinion is held by a number of historians, and has been repeated many times, it is relevant (and therefore should not be deleted).
- As for Lord Radcliffe, he himself is "the accused", whatever he says holds little, if any, credibility. Samm19 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wavell's 'Breakdown Plan' had nothing to do with the partition line, and is irrelevant to the discussion. (And, I should note, there is way too much WP:OR in your commentary.)
- Bangash may be an Oxonian, but all that it means here is that he is a reliable source. So is Shereen Ilahi. Other than that, it is the evidence and the analysis that matters. Bangash too is conceding Ilahi's point in his footnote 22:
 Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, 215-20. Only Pathankot tehsil had a Hindu majority, but, without Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils which had Muslim majorities, India could still not have unfettered access to Kashmir.
- So it is not the Pathankot tehsil that is being contested, but the Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils. Supposedly it provided "unfettered access", which was important enough for Nehru, Mountbatten as well Radcliffe to bend the rules and cheat in favaour of India. It is a pretty far-fetched theory that might have currency in Pakistan, but note here. Victoria Schoefield, who is sensible about these matters says this:
In the final award the three tehsils... went to India. A memorandum prepared by the minister of state, which included Radcliffe's observations after he returned to England, reported that the reason for changing the 'notional' award regarding Gurdaspur was because 'the headwaters of the canals which irrigate the Amritsar District lie in the Gurdaspur District and it is important to keep as much as possible of these canals under one [i.e. Indian] administration'.[35: Hugh Tinker, 'Pressure, Persuasion, Decision...', The Journal of Asian Studies, August 1977, p.702] Wavell, however, had made a more significant political judgement in his plan, submitted to the secretary of state, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in February 1946: 'Gurdaspur must go with Amritsar for geographical reasons and Amritsar being sacred city of Sikhs must stay out of Pakistan... Fact that much of Lahore district is irrigated from upper Bari Doab canal with headworks in Gurdaspur district is awkward but there is no solution that avoids all such difficulties.' Wavell had also noted the problem this would create by leaving Qadian, the holy city of the Ahmadiyyas, in India, but the interests of the Sikhs were considered to be paramount. 'The greatest difficulty is position of Sikhs with their homelands and sacred places on both sides of the border. This problem is one which no version of Pakistan can solve'.[36: Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 7 February 1946, Transfer, vol.6, doc. 406, p.912]
- There the matter rests, unless somebody can dig up some evidence to the contrary.
- Please don't speak of "accusing" people. That is not the job of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me remind you my friend that Wavell's 'Break Down' plan was brought into discussion by you and I have only replied/responded. As for WP:OR, I am new to wikipedia editing and am trying to learn about 'how to add references', but rest assured I know what I am talking about, and I can back up everything I write/say with authentic sources.
- No, Mr. Bangash is not conceding Ilahi's point. As already shown, she doesn't even have 'a point' to begin with.
- If one goes through the section 'Partition and Invasion', he may find out that the entire section is dedicated to Indian POV only and contains different kinds of unsubstantiated allegations leveled against Pakistan by Indian authors and scholars. I am surprised that you have no problem with that but are unwilling to let anyone post Pakistan's point of view in that section. So, let's leave aside other things and concentrate on this. What makes you believe that posting/presenting the official position maintained by Pakistan in this regard (that is corroborated by multiple local and international sources) should not be allowed ? Samm19 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- As I said right in the beginning it would be "completely UNDUE" to go into the issues of partition or the British role in the whole affair. The British role was of course not limited to the allocation of Gurdaspur. It started sometime around 1939 in promising the creation of Pakistan and it went all the way until Pakistan signed the Mutual Defence Treaty with the US in 1954. There is long story to be told, and there are plenty of books about it.
- This article is on Kashmir conflict and it focuses on India, Pakistan and the people of the state, who are the main people that are "conflicted". The maximum that can be put in this article is the mention that the award of Gurdaspur to India made Kashmir contiguous to India, and Pakistanis allege British manipulation of the award. I will add that in the next couple of days.
- Regarding Wavell, you are confusing the 'breakdown plan' (January 1947) with his partition line (February 1946). The Radcliffe line essentially followed Wavell's, except for a few details. So, Wavell's line is quite important, even though it is hard to find sources about it.
- As for Radcliffe, most people don't seem to know the process. Radcliffe didn't lock himself up in a room and work in vacuum. He was the head of Commission (in fact, two Commissions), which held public hearings with copious presentations and argumentations made by both the sides. Radcliffe didn't attend all the sessions, but the proceedings were flown in to him on a daily basis. So he knew what the issues were. It is quite ridiculous to claim that some letter from Nehru to Mountbatten was evidence of "cheating". All kinds of people were trying to talk to all kinds of people, trying to influence the award. You yourself quoted Liaquat Ali Khan trying to pressure Ismay. That was equally evidence of "cheating".
- Christopher Beaumont, Radcliffe's secretary, has revealed that the only time Radcliffe met Mountbaten without an aide was on 11 August for a lunch. The Gurdaspur decision had been made before that date, and the Pakistan government has in its possession (through another instance of "cheating") a copy of the older map which shows that fact. So, sorry to burst your bubble. It is quite easy to prove that the Gurdaspur decision was Radcliffe's own decision.
To Kautilya3: My friend, I know what I am talking about and I am not confusing anything. However, I am unable to understand that why are you so much against allowing Pakistani View to be presented/posted? Pakistan, after all, is a party to the Dispute. You have every right to disagree with the Pakistani position, but why censor it ? Pakistan bases its entire Kashmir case on the unfair and planned transfer of the Muslim majority Gurdaspur District to India in order to give it a land access to Kashmir, and it considers this controversial transfer to be the 'origin' of the dispute. I fail to see how is this 'not related' to the topic. We all have our prejudices and biases but we shall not let our prejudice cloud our judgement. So, I would say that Pakistani View definitely deserves more than just 'two lines'. Samm19 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And... respected sir, I request you not to use phrases like "burst your bubble" etc., trust me, you haven't even come close to 'proving' anything. We can always agree to disagree however Samm19 (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- You have asked multiple times why I am "against" Pakistani View to be presented. So, here is the answer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (click that and read it), which focuses on presenting factual information. Views come into the picture only to the extent that facts may not be known, and multiple sources provide conflicting views. However, Wikipedia is not a forum to present "views". That would be a WP:SOAPBOX, which Wikipedia is not.
- Now you assert Pakistan bases its entire Kashmir case on the unfair and planned transfer. That is complete WP:OR as far as I can see. You need to provide reliable third party sources that attest to that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- To Kautilya3: Yes, you are right, sir. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is supposed to be neutral and present 'facts'. But the problem here is that you are presenting unsubstantiated Indian allegations as factual information, and are parading the opinions of Indian authors as 'facts'. India and Pakistan see Kashmir issue through different prisms and what is considered 'fact' by one is rejected as 'fiction' and 'fabrication' by the other. The international opinion on this matter is divided. Some scholars accept the Indian position while many others reject it. Same holds true for the Pakistani position. I believe that the proper approach in such matters is to allow both sides to present their views and leave it to the readers to decide who is right and who is not, and what the actual 'facts' of the matter are. Why double standards ?? Why allow Indian view but censor Pakistani? You are ignoring Wikipedia's basic principle and core content policy of NPOV:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
- About what I have posted, I have backed it up with proper and reliable sources/references, Pakistani as well as neutral. Please read it through. So, I will ask you once again to stop deleting/disallowing properly referenced content that goes against your pre-conceived notions, and that challenges the Indian position. I believe we can sort out this 'dispute' mutually. Otherwise, we can ask for 'neutral' opinion on this. Regards Samm19 (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are being evasive. You have started this entire discussion of the Gurdaspur Award and wrote reams of posts, claiming Pakistan bases its entire Kashmir case on the unfair and planned transfer. I have asked for reliable sources that state this. You haven't provided any. Can you do that please? If there are problems with other issues in the article, you are welcome to raise them separately. But as far as this discussion is concerned, you need to demonstrate the claimed centrality of the Gurdaspur Award to the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
To Kautilya3: You, my friend, seem to have some serious comprehension issues. Read "Pakistani PoV" through, carefully, and then please tell us what makes you believe that it is not related to the (history/origin of the) Kashmir Dispute ???. And please tell us that why do you think that the 'provided sources' are not reliable ? or why should it not be included in the section "Partition and invasion" ? Also, please tell us that why are you OK with the unsubstantiated allegations leveled against Pakistan by Indian authors in the aforementioned section but NOT ok with Pakistani view ? Samm19 (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
About Notional Award, of course it wasn't 'final'. The point is, the notional award, in accordance with 'The terms of reference to the Boundary Commission'; of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims,  did 'suggest' that the entire Gurdaspur District, including the Hindu majority tehsil of Pathankot, would be included in Pakistan as it was 51.14% Muslim majority. All of the 5 Muslim majority tehsils of Non-Muslim majority districts of Punjab that were to be included in India as per the notional award were handed over to India. But the only non-Muslim majority Tehsil (i.e. Pathankot) that was to be included in Pakistan, was not given to Pakistan, and then to add insult to injury, two more Muslim majority tehsils (Gurdaspur and Batala) were given away to India along with Pathankot. Therefore, Ms. Shereen Ilahi's assertion/claim that 'the non-Muslim majority of Pathankot tehsil placed it solidly on the Indian side of the line' cannot be accepted, and the assumption that Pathankot, owing to its Hindu majority, was to be included in India anyway, is ill-founded. Samm19 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
One sided / Biased article
This article is composed with very biased and one sided articles. It is not good for reference or education purpose. It only shows Pakistan's hard line views. For example, every where it keeps saying India is a fault and Pakistan is not.
Examples: "Nehru was lying....." - Not a fact. "Human rights violations are more in Indian Administered Kashmir than POK" - No reporting every comes out from POK due to hard dictatorship of Pak Govt. "Rapes etc by Indian military forces..." - not an actual fact or any evidence.
We should have normal narrative where both sides should be represented. I request this article to be updated accordingly or removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonalrajeev (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, in the introduction, it takes a quote from a book about the alleged human rights violations of the Indian army versus those of the terrorist organizations, and asserts that the army's violations are far worse (stated as fact rather than the opinion of one author). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:C689:4A00:F0CD:C6C:2F28:47DC (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)