Talk:Jammu and Kashmir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian states workgroup.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jammu and Kashmir article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

[edit] Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

I intend to build up the page on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 using info from this page and then cut the info on that war out of this page so we don't have too many parallel versions. Any probs with this?

[edit] stub?

should this still be considered a stub, I dont know how much more can be done with it unless you want to include info on the Indo-Pakistani Wars (which all have their own pages) on this page.

The previous statement was left by User:Gozar

The article doesn't contain anyting regarding the economy, culture and geography of the state. --IncMan 22:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] boundary of area claimed by India

If one compares Image:Kashmir map.jpg published by the CIA or other maps published by the UN, with ones published by governments and other organisations within India (e.g. [1]), one can see a marked difference of the boundary of Aksai Chin around its easternmost tip. Perhaps in order to really show what each country claims we've to make a map that contains all these different boundaries... -- Paddu 11:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kashmir.png shows the boundary as claimed by India. -- Paddu 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the CIA map is good enough. A map depicting the claims of all the countries would be too messy. Thanks --IncMan 12:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well there are only 3 countries here, and for NPOV I thought all the 3 views must be expressed. Also, there is the possibility of people mistaking the boundary as in the CIA map as the boundary that India claims, since it's not specifically mentioned anywhere that India claims something totally different from what these maps show. Also in the current situation, it looks like Image:Kashmir map.jpg and Image:Kashmir.png are inconsistent, which is IMHO not good for the encyclopaedia. Or probably someone could create an image which has both these images in it. -- Paddu 13:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the two maps is hardly anything. --{{IncMan|talk}} 15:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan's prespective

It should be stated in the first few sentences that Pakistan calls this area "Indian Occupied Kashmir." Just like it is done in the "Azad Kashmir" article; India's prespective is given in the first sentence. Sara Ahmed - 6 Sep 2005

Ok, I get your point. But at the same time, India doesnt call its part of Kashmir as Free Kashmir unlike Pakistan. By calling Pakistani-administered Kashmir as Azad Kashmir, Pakistan very well expresses its point of view and hence mentioning Indian prespective becomes necessary to maintain neutrality. In this case, one cant compare Jammu and Kashmir with Azad Kashmir as the former is very much a neutral term. Also, you signed yr comment at the Azad Kashmir talkpage by the name Fawwad while you referred to yrself as Sara Ahmed in the comment above. Please note that using sock puppets is against Wikipedia's policy. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There you go with the Indian bias. I do not agree with you at all. "Azad" is an Urdu word fimiliar to Pakistanis and Indians but others do not understand it; Pakistan calls the area under its control "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" not "Free Jammu and Kashmir." To a person unfamiliar with the situation, "Azad" means nothing. "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" is also a neutral term, Its just the Indians who take it to heart; you won't find any name neutral, people can name their region whatever they want. So, I believe that it needs to be mentioned that Pakistan calls Indian controlled Kashmir, "Indian Occupied Kashmir."

Since you are so bothered about me, I will like to tell you that this computer is shared, that happens you know. So my friends may write comments usingthis computer as well. Thanks. Have a nice day and I hope that you understand my point:). Sara Ahmed - 8 Sep 2005 - 21:20 (PST)

In that case case, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Regarding the article on Azad Kashmir, the article does say that Azad means free or independent in Urdu. Tx --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is biased. It only gives the Indian perspective; India says that the Maharaja of Kashmir "acceded" to Indian, Pakistan does not agree to that. If we believe India than India also has accept the fact that the Rulers of Junagadh and Munawadar (in Indian Gujarat) acceded to Pakistan and India captured these states by force. Also Hyderabad, wanted to be an independent state, it too was forcibly occupied by India.

This article should be objective, and give both sides of the story. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 19, 2005. 10:38 (PST)

India did the same thing what u guys did; tit for tat. Soon after the Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India, Pakistan invaded it capturing half of Kashmir, so why should India spare Junagadh and Munawadar? Think about it... --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget about Hyderabad! I have thought about it and that is why I wrote what I wrote. You should think about what I said; both positions should be stated, you can't just give the Indian point of view. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 20, 2005. 10:42 (PST)

The article does Pakistan point of view (Pakistan, however, does not recognize the region as being a part of India and calls the region under Indian control, i.e. Jammu & Kashmir, as Occupied Kashmir while the region under its control is called Azad Kashmir meaning Free Kashmir, except for the separately-administered [[Northern Areas,). You mentioned the same thing again in the first para compelling me to revert yr edit. Also, there is no place called Azad J&K, its Azad Kashmir. Also, at many places u added Indian Occupied Kashmir and replaced the term PoK with Azad J&K; another unjustified edit. U call J&K as IoK but the one under Pakistan's occupation as Azad! I dont know wat does Pakistan wanna prove by calling its part of Kashmir as Azad or Free? How can u call it a free kashmir when its under an undemocratic Pakistani govt. To maintain neutrality, both the regions should be mentioned as Indian- and Pakistani-administered kashmir. Also, the pathans invaded Kashmir because Maharaja refused to acede it to Pakistan. the very issue of Kashmir joining India came afetr Pathans invaded Kashmir. Also, India didnt force Kashmir to become a part of the Indian Union. The Indian Constitution at that time didnt allow state forces to provide security to any foreign nation. The Maharaja willfully aceded kashmir to India. In order to insert Pakistan;\'s view yr neglecting facts. TX --{{IncMan|talk}} 17:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Azad Jammu and Kashmir exists. The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir call it that, their government calls it that; take a look at its website Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Who says Pakistan's government is undemocratic? Its not! The west, the guardians of democracy, certainly call us a democratic country:) And we are very happy with our democracy...we are freer than Indians; Indians have been brain washed by the Indian media, which shows Pakistan as a poor and conservative country, that is why Indians are surprised when they visit Pakistan and see how free and liberal it is; take a look at that too Pakistanis socialites in Pakistan. Come and take a look. You say "The Indian Constitution at that time didnt allow state forces to provide security to any foreign nation," here you contradict yourself by saying that "The Maharaja willfully aceded kashmir to India." So, India forced the Maharaja to accede to India as a pre-condition to providing help because providing help otherwise would have been against this constitution. By the way Junagadh, Munawadar and Hyderabad didn't ask for Indian help of any kind but they were occupied too. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 21, 2005. 10:26 (PST)

Okay, yr arguing with the arong person. I've very little knowledge regrading the history of the entire issue. All I know is that General Pervez came to power in a military coup (highly undemocratic and I've never read any Indian newspaper), the Maharaja aceded Kashmir to India because that was the only way he could help from India (New Delhi didnt held him on gunpoint and forced him to sign the instrument of accesion... they just kept a pre-condition: want Indian help, join India. If u dont wanna join India, forget Indian help. The rest was left on the Maharaja and he preferred the 1st option. India didnt force him to do anything. He took the decision by his own will.) and Kashmir didnt ask Pakistan for any help, but still the latter sent its troops to Kashmir after the instrument of accession was signed. To end, in 1947, 43% of J&K population consisted of hindus, sikhs and buddhists, all favoring India over Pakistan. During the 1965 war, India captured most of kashmir but during the tashkent agreement it returned most of the nuslim majority areas back to Pakistan retaining Hindu-majority Jammu, muslim-majority Kashmir valley and buddhist-majority Ladakh. India favors status-quo but Pakistan claims all of Indian Kashmir including Jammu and ladakh. On wat basis? Also India held elections in J&K in 2003 and there was 65% voter turnout (even though terrorist groups boycotted the elections). I guess u know the results too, Indian National Congress and its ally People's Democratic Party won with a considerable majority while the main opposition and former ally of the BJP emerged as the single largest party. This clearly shows favorable opinion Kashmiris have towards India. To end, I think the Pakistani media is trying to brainwash the Pakistanis by continously alleging the Indian Army of carrying out abuses in J&K. --{{IncMan|talk}} 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you , just replying to an allegation you made. If you do not know about the issue then do not talk about it! General Musharaf was elected President in a refrendum! And that's exactly what Pakistan wants in Kashmir, ask the Kashmiris what they want, just what the U.N resolutions have said. India has never had plebiscite in Kashmir, I guess Nehru lied in his speeches when he said that India will conduct a plebiscite. Unlike India, Pakistanis get TV channels from all over the world; including Pakistani and many Indian channels (Star News, Zee News, NDTV, DD News.) So, we atleast know what lies your media cooks up; on the other hand you have no idea about our media since India does not let any Pakistani channels be aired in India. And the turnout in the 2003 "elections" in Indian Occupied Kashmir according to independent observers was 40% and not 65%; probably only Hindus of Kashmir voted. And if you consider "All Parties Hurriyet Conference" (the seperatist group) a terrorist organization, then why is the Indian government talking to them, inviting them to Delhi and treating them so very nicely?

Also, now you accept that their was a pre-condition set by India, earlier you weren't agreeing to that. Good. So the fact remains that a Hindu Maharaja rulling over a Muslim population will choose India, just like the Muslim rulers of Junagadh and Munawadar choose Pakistan, and the rulers of Bhopal and Hyderabad wanted to remain independent. Just like India occupied Junagadh and Munawadar, Bhopal and Hyderabad, Pakistan wants Kashmir because the rulers decision doesn't hold any weight in India's eyes. Thats what happened in Junagadh and Munawadar, Bhopal and Hyderabad; and that should happen in Kashmir too.

Also, its not the Pakistani media that is saying that the Indian Military is carrying out Human Rights Abuses, western NGOs say that too. Human Rights Crisis in Indian Occupied Kashmir

FYI : AAJ TV Pakistan GEO TV Pakistan - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 22, 2005. 10:40 (PST)

Frankly, I was born in Kuwait and brought up in Netherlands. Ive hardly lived in India; just a few weeks every third year. So it is quite obvious for you to know more about South Asian issues than what I know. However, I do remember my father saying that the voter turnout during the state elections were more than 60% ( i guess people living in PoK were not counted as voters). Anyway, I always thought that there was a possible solution to the Kashmir dispute, but after reading yr comments I realize how complex the matter is. Talking about the referrendum, Saddam hussein carried out a similar referrendum in 2001 in which he got 98% of Iraqi votes! Pervez is a military dictator and there is no way to verify whether the referrundum was conducted freely. Ill regard the Pakistani govt as a democratic one when Pervez steps down and carries out free elections. To be frank, kashmir is draining Indian resources. The govt spends so much of money patrolling the region and it gets nothing in return except dead soldiers and more allegations. Acc to me, India should give up its claim over kashmir excluding the regions of Jammu and Ladakh.

To end, its quite funny to see India and Pakistan fighting like cats and dogs over an unproductive, mountainous region. I wouldnt be suprised if I see India and pakistan fighting over Antartica some time in near future. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse people living in "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" were not counted as voters since it is not under Indian Occupation; they have their own elections. Also, the people who live in a country decide what constitutes as a democracy and what does not; Pakistanis are happy with what they have, democracy. Additionally, the WEST judges what constitutes as a democracy, and they are happy with what Pakistan has:) We, the Pakistanis are happy too. And it does not matter to us what you or other Indians think of our democracy.

I would love it of the Kashmir problem is solved and by the way, personaly, I would agree to it if Pakistan gets Kashmir valley and the rest of Kashmir, and India keeps Jammu and Ladakh. That will be fine. Also, I wanted to tell you about the real Pakistan since many Indians, like many of my Indian friends had no clue about Pakistan; their ideas about Pakistan were so strange. By the way we compete anyways since you are at Purdue and I went to IU Bloomington. Go Hoosiers! - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 23, 2005. 10:12 (PST)

Yeah, I read an article in a magazine (not sure whether it was Newsweek or Time) few months ago on Pakistan's growing economy. I always had a very good impression of Pakistan. I just love the plays you guys make. Dhoop Kinare (i hope i spelled it right) is my all time favourite. Relations between India and Pakistan are improving and Im glad about that. But I still dont agree with you on Kashmir valley joining Pakistan. Look, PDP and the National Conference are very big parties with lots of muslim supporters even though they have close links with mainstream Indian national parties. Omar Abdullah, National Conf leader, was a former Cabinet minister during the NDA regime. Presently, two of the Indian cabinet ministers belong to the PDP. Most of the Hindus and Sikhs living in J&K voted for the INC and the BJP. Still PDP and NC emerged as the largest parties showing that a lot of non-Hindus (i.e. muslim) voted for them. Now since these parties are pro-India, by voting for these parties, the muslims in Kashmir have expressed their opinions. Regarding the Hurriyat Conference, by making efforts to hold talks with them, the Govt of India has showed that it means business. The Indian govt is treating the hurriyat nicely because they wanna settle issues peacefully. Consequence, a hurriyat leader recently alleged Pakistan's info minister of running terrorist camps in so-called azad kashmir. The Hurriyat Confernce is now splitting and New delhi's efforts are finally beginning to pay off. --{{IncMan|talk}} 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Kashmiri Indians have shown they believe in secularism and don't want another theocratic 'republic' meddeling in their affairs. Pakistanis have to learn that terrorism is not ok for what so ever reason. They must not give 'moral' support to taliban and kashmiri terrorists. Anand Arvind 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

hello, In india we get a number of pakistani channels. PTV, QTV,GEO (i think)....The PTV was blocked in India only for a brief time (during the 'Kargil' period) for obvious reasons. Otherwise there is no ban on any channels (of any country). As long as they can compete and capture viewers, they are successful. I thought it's PEMRA(Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ) that's in a tug of war with the cable operators. The operators want Indian channels for generating more adv. revenew, but the authorities have it's own 'fears' and interests. That's what I could gather from Dawn (yes Dawn!! Indians do read it too). BTW i'm a Ayaz Amir fan, though he is a bit hyper critical about your president in his views. ---Pratheepps 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did a new edit

I did not agree with the line in the demographics section which blamed the demographics of the region as the problem for the Kashmir "Terrorism problem" which is highlighted as "Kashmir dispute"... I'm fairly miffed that...

a. terrorists are imported into the region to disrupt the community's harmony

b. terrorism is called "dispute" <waiting to see if original poster fixes or replies on that>

c. all violence is blamed on a community that held rock solid against all kinds of devious schemes to "divide and rule" as in 1948's war

plus the fact that a mass exodus of ~20k families took place in the '80s was missing.

sources? All major Indian papers. Try a google search for Kashmiri Pandits

the sentence...

"It is this complex demography of the region which has been main cause for the ongoing Kashmir dispute."

is back.

I don't know WHY would someone blame the entire community. The root cause of the problem has been two countries laying claim to the area. And the current problems in the area are because a certain government *proactively* supports covert guerilla action by non-conventional troops trained in suicidal warfare...

I'd say it was Kamekaze style, but that word is for a dignified death. Killing innocent schoolchildren by blowing up jeeps outside the school is not.

Don't know how they sleep at night.

I know I'm sorta rambling here, but you have to explain to me ...

how is the demography responsible for external terrorists infiltrating?

Nimishbatra 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I would like to dispute this article - Kashmir is disputed territory and not part of India. The matter is still resolved due to Indian refusal to honor UN Security Council resolution.

User:Siddiqui 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As per Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, J&K was declared as a state of India. The territory may be disputed, but please do remember, India administers part of the territory as Jammu and Kashmir, and we are reflecting that. The part that Pakistan governs is titled as "Azad Kashmir" . Please also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please also do mention the UN Security Council resolution as reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Kashmir as well as this article indicate amply that Kashmir is a disputed territory. I believe the POV tag is entirely inappropriate in light of this and hence I wd be removing the tag after a week if no opposing comments are forthcoming. --Gurubrahma 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've copyedited the lead to maintain an NPOV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Request a discussion here first for any remaining concerns before (repeatedly) tagging this article. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from India Occupied Kashmir

The region Jammu and Kashmir is exactly same as what is called 'Indian occupied kashmir' and both the articles acknowledge that. Why have two articles then? Quiet frankly I think the later article is pure propaganda and has no information value at all. This article is in much better shape and presents both Indian and Pakistani arguments reasonably. Why not simply redirect the Indian Occupied Kashmir to this article? Anand Arvind 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have given more comments on the Indian Occupied Kashmir talk page. Lost 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Indian occupied Kashmir article is a POV fork. -- FRCP11 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. IOK is a POV fork and should be made a redirect. The name should be mentioned in the opening paragraph though. Eluchil404 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Occupied Kashmir does not exist for the very fact that the region is not'occupied' by India but actually belongs to India. The article Indian Occupied Kashmir should be scrapped as the term itself is incorrect.

[edit] Merge from Terrorism in Kashmir

I oppose this merger with this article since there is a lot of information on terrorism in Kashmir that cannot just be covered in a section of the main Jammu and Kashmir article. I will remove the tag if anybody does not tell me why and how this can be just one article. Anand Arvind 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A solution might be to rename the article and call it Conflict in Kashmir or Indo-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir or something so that discussions of both terrorism and state repression could be discussed on the page. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for a soapbox afterall. Tombseye 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss about the name of Terrorism in Kashmir article. But still it doesn't justify merger with the main Jammu and Kashmir article. Anand Arvind 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not justifying anything, I am merely offering up a solution to the impasse. Tombseye 22:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove this merge tag unless somebody argues in favor of keeping it. This tag was added without leaving even an edit summary. Anand Arvind 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge this page with Kashmir

There are several reasons to merge this page:

1- Kashmir page and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.

2- These pages have a large overlap.

[edit] Pro-Indian Bias

This page should be organized like Kashmir page. Furthermore, this section is clearly showing pro-Indian bias.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJammu_and_Kashmir_a782.html"

Categories: WikiProject Indian states articles | Start-Class Indian states articles | Top-importance Indian states articles | Start-Class India articles | Top-importance India articles