Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2019

convert "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947 as a dispute over the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir" to "The conflict started when Pakistan invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that had decided to remain independent after the partition of India in 1947"

The current text suggests that the conflict originated as part of the partition, however it was not the case. Kashmir had decided to exercise its right to remain independent post partition, but Pakistan tried to convince the then ruler to join Pakistan. When he did not agree, Pakistan decided to forcefully take control of independent state of Kashmir. It resulted into conflict when the king Hari Singh signed a treaty with India. Suryap2011 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Changed as requested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Above was reverted due to the same reasons as those given here. Lead revised since. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that suggests that India placed any territorial claims on Kashmir after the independence. Saying that "The conflict started after the partition of India" is equally logical as saying that it started after the birth of Jesus Christ. Both are technically correct, and a modern-day journalist could use one over the other that suits their mischievous and manipulative intentions. However, this comes as a surprise from the elite editors on a platform like Wikipedia. India placed its claim on the territory only after its rightful ruler (Hindu or otherwise) signed a treaty to merge the land ruled by him (not that only he merged with India) with India. It would be correct to say that conflict started after its ruler merged Kashmir with India. Now it may make sense to further add why he decided to do it. At this point, it is reasonable to mention the Pakistani Tribal Invasion as the trigger. As such, there seems to be clear intension including opinions along with the facts - "Pakistan invaded after there was internal revolt" (is it sufficient reason?), "Hindu ruler of Kashmir merged with India" (do we always mention religion of a ruler doing something like this?) I would vote to put up this article for review for carrying biases.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

The intro says "The dispute began in 1947 with the partition of the British Indian Empire.." which is factually incorrect. Kashmir had decided to remain independent - a decision on the lines of that of Nepal and Bhutan. Kashmir would have remained an independent country had it not been the Pakistan's invasion to forcefully capture the territory of Kashmir. And it happened 2-3 months after the independence and partition of India. The Kashmir conflict has got nothing to do with the Partition and even mentioning it alongside partial, with an agenda to hide the facts behind the conflict.

I think it must be changed accordingly. One of my previous proposals were rejected so I leave it to the admins on how to make it factually correct and impartial.

As for the process for submitting edit requests - I suggest to change it to "The dispute began in 1947 when the Pakistan's forces Invaded territory of Kashmir with an intention to capture it, when the negotiations led by Jinnah had failed with Hari Singh" Suryap2011 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead has been rewritten to provide clearer context, but part of the discussion on your proposal is here. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done DBigXrayᗙ 07:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 15:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that suggests that India placed any territorial claims on Kashmir after the independence. Saying that "The conflict started after the partition of India" is equally logical as saying that it started after the birth of Jesus Christ. Both are technically correct, and a modern-day journalist could use one over the other that suits their mischievous and manipulative intentions. However, this comes as a surprise from the elite editors on a platform like Wikipedia. India placed its claim on the territory only after its rightful ruler (Hindu or otherwise) signed a treaty to merge the land ruled by him (not that only he merged with India) with India. It would be correct to say that conflict started after its ruler merged Kashmir with India. Now it may make sense to further add why he decided to do it. At this point, it is reasonable to mention the Pakistani Tribal Invasion as the trigger. As such, there seems to be clear intention of including opinions along with the facts - "Pakistan invaded after there was internal revolt" (is it sufficient reason?), "Hindu ruler of Kashmir merged with India" (do we always mention religion of a ruler doing something like this?) I would vote to put up this article for review for carrying biases. Suryap2011 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 you want to take a look ?--DBigXrayᗙ 10:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

How is the partition of India unrelated? It is a key part of the background surrounding the beginning of the tensions and conflict. The origin of the differences between India and Pakistan is religious, so the religion here is relevant context. This is also the lead, and what you describe are details of the actual Kashmir conflict which is linked in the first sentence. The more detailed history is not the topic of this article and certainly not the lead, which aims to summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Small error

"Many number of massacres" at #Jammu_and_Kashmir . I can't fix this, could someone else? Pmaxhogan (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)