User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Reddy

What is the proof reddy existed as a separate caste during kakatiya period????Reddy is originally a title used by peasant Telugu communities. Later post kakatiya period it branched off into separate community,here I'm citing cinthia Talbot. Create a separate page for reddy (tittle) and then put kakatiya kings under that page instead of reddy caste article. If I keep Nehru or Gandhi as a surname will I be the same caste as Gandhi or Nehru???? Plzzz answer me (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Calm down buddy. Reddy was not a caste at that time, as you say. Neither were Kamma, Kapu, Velama etc. castes. So the problem with your edit that it was saying there were such castes. I have now added content clarifying the title aspect.

As for making a separate article for "Reddy (title)", you can propose it on the article talk page. But I would oppose it. It is a title that has turned into a "caste", whatever that is supposed to mean. So it is the same subject, not a different one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh rao kumar —SpacemanSpiff 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinction

• I am a layman.
• I speak Y
• But I call it Z.
• Y is mutually intelligible with A , B , C and D.
• A is standard form.
• For centuries A is called language and B , C , D and Y are called its dialects.
• However since last 30 odd years few (NOT ALL) layman speakers of Y (Just like me) want a separate province.
• We start claiming Y as totally separate language from A.
• We start getting support of some Wikipedia users who want every dialect to be labelled as Language.

Question : Is not it fooling and trashing linguistics science on Wikipedia ? My friend K3 please be honest when you reply.

Question 2 : What if I start saying that I have not typed English. I have typed Mogo language. Will you create a new article on mogo language spoken by me bcoz If you will write it English I may get offended ?

Question 3 : Why only Indian languages targeted. Hindi trashed in to pieces, Bhojpuri, Rajahistani, Bihari, Haryanvi, Marwari, Maghadi, Maitli, Chatees garhi, Mewati etc and Punjabi too in to pieces. Why not English or Russian dialects considered as Languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.51.168.40 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

IVC DNA

Do you know if scientists were able to do DNA test on the remains found in the IVC? If so, do you have the article. And if not, do you know why? (2600:1001:B011:A257:C16C:C053:7DD9:38B3 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC))

Keep following this site, and you'll know asap. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but do you have an exact article? (70.192.64.113 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC))

Nope. It's not published yet. Follow that site! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of categories from Indus Valley article

Dear user. I would like to imagine that you made a mistake when you removed the History of Pakistan category from the Indus Valley page, but please refrain from doing so again. This is not the first time I am writing this to Indian users and frankly its childish and petty. --Xinjao (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no memory of this. It does seem that both Category:History of India and Category:History of Pakistan should be removed because the more specific categories Category:Prehistoric India and Category:Prehistoric Pakistan cover them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Abhiran

Hello, I need your advise. This User:Abhiran, does not know how to write; his grasp of the English language can barely suffice for even elementary level. Most of his edits have tons of grammar, spelling, spacing, punctuation, amoung many other major errors. His good faith edits are actually downgrading the quality of wiki articles. Is there any wiki policy that can stop him from editing or sanction him to improve his writing skills? Sorry, I am a grammar nazi; this is beyond annoying. (2600:1001:B026:E417:5DAC:5668:2496:5D65 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

See WP:CIR. If the editor's English is poor but the edits are valuable, we generally put up with it and clean up after them. If they are really poor, the edits can be reverted, citing poor English. If things are intolerable, we can take the editor to WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep an eye on him. (2600:1001:B026:E417:5DAC:5668:2496:5D65 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

Prithvi Narayan Shah

Quick question, I am editing Nepali history. Found conflicting references to the origin of Prithvi Narayan Shah of Nepal. Is he Gurkha or Rajput? (2600:1001:B026:E417:5DAC:5668:2496:5D65 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

Can't Gurkhas have Rajputs? Rajput basically means claiming descent from ancient Kshatriya kings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this source will help you Kautilya3Gorkha(Princely State) Abhiran (talk)

Addition of wrong inaccurate data on article on district kathua

Hii sir, I want to say that I edited the article on district kathua by adding fresh verified data regarding population and others . But I have seen that you are reverting my edits without due reason even when I have provided correct citations so please cooperate state the reasons for these unnecessary reverting of my edits. Thanks AnadiDoD (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi AnadiDoD, yes, citations and edit summaries are important. Thanks for adding them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dublin Regulation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Skardu Fort

I gave references for the claims. Feel free to edit if something is wrong. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a small FYI

This disruptive IP, is most likely operated by the same person (same proficiency, same target articles, same type of edit summaries, same geolocation,[1]) who used this one.[2] Thought you might be interested. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the IP is ill-behaved but he probably has valid points. When a new nation gets created on old land, how do you define the identity? It is not an easy issue.

I think it is in India's interest in letting the Pakistanis claim all their heritage based on land. Nehru made a mistake by laying claim to the "India" label. There were plenty other names for India. Had he let go of the "India" label, it could have belonged equally to all the nations of the subcontinent. But instead we have now all these artificial problems... -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this revert. I see that the IP user has now enlarged his claims. But I think the issues are still the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Kupwara massacre

What is the difference between words "accused of" and "found guilty" it is a historic fact that army killed people that day which is being covered by all newspapers so they were found guilty of killing the people. What is the prob with that.Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Owais, "finding guilty" is legal terminology. It is to be employed only when a court of law determines guilt. Please check what the sources say and use the same terminology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hindustani language

Hey, I am replying to the message you left on my talk. I did leave an edit summary(And that too a large one) on Indo European languages page. Also are summaries necessary for talk pages ?King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I didn't notice your first edit summary.

The problem with your edit was that it contradicted what the Hindustani language page says: It is a pluricentric language, with two official forms, Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu,. If you want to contest that, you need to do so on its talk page. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Some brainstorm: Iron Age India & Vedic Period

Hi Kautilya3. There's something weird about the terminology for the post-Harappan of north-Indian history: it's referred to as "Post-Harappan," "Vedic Period" + "Second Urbanisation (India)," and "Iron Age India." The terminology being used seems to depend on the context: IVC, Vedic religion, or archaeology.
Kenoyer (1997) and Coningham & Young (2015) treat the Indus Valley Tradition/Indus Age and the succeeding Post-Harappan/Vedic period/Iron Age as one sequence of developments, which is very interesting; it takes the IVC and the Vedic period out of their isolated positions as 'discrete' events, and shifts the focus to a much longer duree, and to the continuities and changes between those two periods. It's interesting; it also tells something about shifting insights and approaches. It might be good if we could somehow also introduce this broader view here at Wikipedia; see also History of India, which does not cover all terminology.
As a related point: an article on the "Indus Valley Tradition" seems to be too much of a fork; but it might also be called "Indus Age" (Possehl); but then, maybe it would be easier to start with synchronising the various 'big' articles on Indian history. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi JJ, my idea is that the article on the "Indus Valley Tradition" would mainly present the evidence and argument for the framework. It can take for granted the material that is already on the IVC page. It can be mainly about the term and what it represents, i.e., the processes, rather than rehashing all the archaeological civilisational material. Until I started reading some of these papers (haven't read any books yet), I was under the impression that the IVC died and disppeared for a long time before the Vedic civilisation began. But the evidence indicates that pretty much nothing disappeared, except for Harappa and Mohenjodaro. This stuff needs to be documented somewhere!

As regards the terminology, we are talking about multiple movements overlapping in time span. Trying to see it as a single chronology is probably a mistake. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice comment: "Until I started reading some of these papers (haven't read any books yet), I was under the impression that the IVC died and disppeared for a long time before the Vedic civilisation began." Some of this is also in the Indo-Aryan migration theory article; I've always thought that it was added by some pov-pushers, which raised questions with me about those archaeologists, but I've also always felt that it was important. It convinced me that the Aryan migrations were not a 'huge' thing. For me the same: I started reading more because of the discrepancy in dating between the start of the Early Harappan and the Regionalisation Era, and I am intrigued by this continuity. It makes sense. And it shows the relevance of those "new" approaches by Shaffer, Kenoyer and Coningham & Young. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also exercised about the fact that the term Mleccha does not occur in the Vedas, even though its variants like Milakka were current in Pali etc. When it does occur in the post-Vedic literature (Srautasutras), it occurs as a verb Mlecchati (interpreted as "speaking incoherently") and not as an ethnic label. This raises the possibility that the Mlecchas (Meluhhans) were themselves part of the Vedic culture. The dasas, dasyus, panis etc. (the enemies of the Vedic Aryans) were likely not Indians (Parpols'a view). The puras were also in Afghanistan or further up in Central Asia. All the prior conclusions were based on the assumption that the Rigveda was composed inside India. If we assume, for the moment, that it was composed in the BMAC, the picture changes entirely. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Article check

Could you check the edits of Ayonpradhan? They seem to be adding arbitrary links to certain articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect

Hi. You recently participated in the Requested move discussion for Saraiki dialect, which has now been closed. The close is under discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect, where you'll be welcome to comment. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala, yes, I have noticed. Unfortunately, I can't find anything to say about the close. I think it was proper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Telugu language page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Trilinga

Thanks Kautilya for putting back some of the subject matter that you have undid. Thanks for realizing the validity and truth of at least some of what I put together. My salute to people like you. Some guy thinks that what I sourced was skeptical or flimsy and not related to etymology etc and makes these kind of comments as a so-called editor though I never made comments at his level, that is fine, I hope he will realize that I never said what I sourced was related to etymology in 100% but it is related to the background to support the history of the etymology. And what he may be forgetting or hasn't done a proper research is that I did not put that subject matter to begin with. I just corrected it with an old source that he honored previously. I see you had your etymology on the talk page as "Kautilya was the author of Arthashastra, the earliest treatise on politics and economics in the world, and the mentor and Chief Minister of Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya empire.Etymologically, "Kautilya" means "belonging to Kutila", where the latter means "round" or "curvy". Kutila was a popular female name in the first millenium B.C..." I just loved it. Before commenting on my edits, somebody needs to go back and see if I added it originally or if I just corrected it. And nothing in that is my opinion. Somebody needs to rethink as an editor before making such comments. Anyways my salute to you and let the "somebody" learn from you. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't remove much, just the stuff related to Trilingadesham, which, as I said, is WP:UNDUE there. But the issue of Trilingadesham is interesting. The classical Sanskrit sources don't use the term, only the local traditions. I always thought it was a made-up term until I found references to the Greek sources. So I am going to look into it more.

My user page is a mix of fact and fiction. It would be never fit for a Wikipedia page. But, to tell you the truth, most writings of Andhra historians are similar. They seem to talk among themselves and never raise to the national/international standards of scholarship. Velcheru Narayana Rao is a remarkable exception. I would encourage you to read the Rao & Shulman book that I cited. (They also have an excellent book on Srinatha, with a lot of historical information, and another one on Tamil Nayaka rulers, who were all Telugu by the way). Their view is that Trilinga was derived from Tri-Kalinga, which makes sense because Kalinga was an ancient name and it was used synonymously with Andhra in the Sanskrit sources.

If you are going to be editing in this area, I would recommend reading WP:HISTRS closely and digesting everything it says. The identity of the authors, publishers, and the dates of publication are all extremely important. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bud Kautilya, you did a good research and I am aware of it all, and I know Velcheru Narayana Rao and his writings very well, if you want me to show, I will show you some easy attribution mistakes that he makes for his stature. I am not "boasting" but I know the greatest of the lexicographers through my family or through research. I will learn to signature but for now I will let the bot do it for me. Thanks to the bot and to you for your enthusiasm to learn. Peace and Best to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William772 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New user issues

Hi Kautilya3. How are you. Just though I should give you a heads up on a new user (goes by various user names starting with "Worldciv"...) who appears to have the right intentions of adding useful info but does not know haw to go about it. He has been hitting FA's such as Chalukya Dynasty and Vijayanagara Empire. I have tried to improve his content presentation and citations where necessary and added some info with my own sources to augment his info. But he needs to understand that major additions to FA's happens through discussions and also that FA's are usually summary style articles. Couple of other users have left messages for him and Pied Hornbill has removed repetitive info and templates too. I believe you removed some WP:copyvio info too recently. I am hoping that multiple users can direct him in the right direction.Mayasandra (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

They are a bunch of students in a class. (Thankfully their user names tell us that.) SpacemanSpiff is monitoring them. But he would need help. We need to carefully review all the content they add and revert stuff that isn't kosher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thought as much. Will research one piece he added that I reverted (Koppesvara temple at Khedrapura in Maharashtra) which if I recall was a Seuna Yadava (vasslas of the later Chalukya) construction in Later Chalukya style. Will put that back if my memory served me wrong.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James O'Keefe

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Cause for Reversion

Respected contributor,

        Please tell me the reason for the reversion of the edit I performed on the Article, Delhi Sultanate...
        I added a Hyperlink to the name of Firoz Shah Tughlaq which shockingly enough was not present in a paragraph describing his rule.
        I also added a link to Tyrant in Ala-ud-din Khilji's rule given the fact that some people might not know what it means and might wanna read about it...
        Strangely enough, you also reverted my edit where I removed the link for Ghazi Malik.
        Ghazi Malik and Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq AKA Tughlak Shah are the same individuals. However, 2 links existed in the same line... So I removed 1 link for Ghazi Malik which does not point to any article at all..
        I also edited a line which said South India and changed it to Southern India...

        Respected Sir, if you find any of these edits as problematic or bad, please tell me the reason for reversion...

Thanking you, NUMWARZ 13:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)NUMWARZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NUMWARZ (talk • contribs)

Hi Numwarz, welcome to Wikipedia. The reasons for the revert, as I said in the edit summary were, (i) that it was unexplained (didn't have an edit summary), and (ii) that it seemed pointless (you were changing links that were already working). More seriously, you added links to words like tyrant and Quran, which should not be linked according to WP:OVERLINK. Also, WP:REDLINK tells you to retain red links in order to encourage new pages to be created. You should remove them only if you think it would be inappropriate to create pages for those topics, and you need to explain that in your edit summaries. Hope that is clear. Sorry that my edit summary was too cryptic. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, the link I removed was for Ghazi Malik who later changed his name to Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq.

I don't think its proper for 2 links pointing to the same page to be present in the same line Respected Sir!

None of the links I changed were already working. Respected Sir, I would like it if you would go through what you revert before reverting as, with great power, sir comes great responsibility.

Thanking you, NUMWARZ 14:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)NUMWARZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NUMWARZ (talk • contribs)

You have indeed changed working links, e.g., Qutub Minar. I will check the Ghazi Malik issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know which is the working link that I have changed! 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)NUMWARZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NUMWARZ (talk • contribs)

See this. It is the diff of your edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

kashmir valley

Brother i have added proper references to my Kashmir valley page. You had reverted some recent changes. You were in saying that kashmir is just a division and geographical feature so it doesn't have a official language. I have changed that. But i have added info which is correct and properly referenced. So i hope you don'trevert them again. Umaarshah (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry i meant to write that you were right in saying that kashmir valley cannot have an official language since it is not a separate entity. Umaarshah (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Umaarshah, thanks for writing to me. I won't revert any content that has sources and explained in the edit summmaries. So please don't worry. I am glad you agree about the "official language" issue. "Government" should also not appear here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Siachen conflict

Did these references [3] [4]open to you, If they did, it is ok, otherwise the whole books can't be references, we need to specify the page numbers for the purpose of referencing. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The first one did, and it checked out ok. The second one didn't show on Google Books and I asked for a quotation.

But the broader point is that they are books. Whether they are available on Google Books or not makes no difference. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So please, then provide the proper references, I am doubtful that these are proper sources, so that everyone can access the sources.Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 04:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "proper references". Full citations have been given. A quotation has also been provided for the citation that didn't have a page number. There is no requirement that a book should be available on Google Books for it to be cited. Books are generally available in libraries and book stores.

A couple of tips: If a user has given a country-specific Google Books url, please change it to "google.com" to get the generic url. (You can also correct it in the wikisource.) To get to a page, say 62, add "&pg=PA62" at the end of the Google Books url, or search for the quotation that has been given.

I would also say, after having interacted with you for a couple of days, try to relax and enjoy editing Wikipedia. There is no war going on here, and all Wikipedians are generally nice people :-) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3 (talk) I rather doubt that the quotation given in 48th reference is not from the book, that's why I was asking for page no. so that source can be confirmed. Thanks.... Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 12:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Brahmi script

Friend being newer in wiki I have done imperfections. But I request you to search on my ideas. I have seen them in news papers. I think it is very important information and you maybe able to find the right persons to choose. VINAYAK PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by VINAYAK PR (talk • contribs) 13:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vinayak, not everything that gets published newspapers is fit for Wikipedia. For historical matters, we exclusively rely on scholarly sources and downrate news items. If there are important discoveries/revisions to be made, then they will eventually appear in scholarly publications. That is when we include them in Wikipedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian Century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.176.10.198 Is Motbag12 evading a blockk. Thanks for your support atSabarimala, but he'll probably now try to use George as she's well known although I'd argue WP:undue. Doug Weller talk 07:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

deletion of content

	deletion of content
	Why was the content deleted for (azad kashmir) when it had reliable sources? CorrectionLab 3000 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CorrectionLab, I deleted it for two reasons:

• There was nothing about government in the sources or the content you added, but it was being put in the "Government" section.
• There was some WP:SYNTHESIS in your text, which wasn't in the sources. I rather doubt if this content belongs here. It could go in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir perhaps, but this article is not about one city. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Chalukya dynasty

Hi. Noticed the edit to this article by dbkasar. Looking back at the history of this article, user dbkasar is an old hat from 2006-2007 time frame who along with some other users (such as mahawiki, later banned from wikipedia) tried to create edit wars in this article on similar issues. We have to be vigilant I guess.Mayasandra (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. Did he actually edit the article? If so, it needs to be documented at WP:SPI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. for example here [[5]] where he calls himself "kasar" . He maintained a low profile compared to his counterparts. but his account user:Dbkasar was eventually blocked permanently for creating numerous sock puppets.Mayasandra (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And looks like he is back to make trouble.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And here is his edit from 2007 with the same content. [[6]]. He has edited a few other articles which I have reverted.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1947 Jammu massacres page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Armenia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenia. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

for creating the article Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha. You also seem to be involved in enhancing the academic rigor of India related articles here. Can you take a look at the message I wrote at User talk:Fowler&fowler. I stumbled upon B P Sinha's article while attempting to create the Wikiquote article on Bihar.

BTW I wonder if you have any opinion on B P Sinha plagiarizing an earlier quote of Hemchandra Raychaudhuri: "Magadha played the same part in history of Ancient India, which Greece and Rome combined played for Europe" vs. "Magadha played the same part in ancient Indian history which Wessex played in the annals of pre-Norman England, and Prussia in the history of modern Germany". Solomon7968 17:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Solomon7968, thanks for your appreciation. To tell you the truth, I don't know all that much about B. P. Sinha. His name came up while I was researching for the Ayodhya dispute and thought he deserved an article on Wikipedia. I am afraid I don't have enough of an expertise in quotes to contribute to Wikiquote. But thanks for thinking of me nevertheless. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You thinking of rewriting that article any time soon? I've had intentions of doing so for a long time, but the size of the task has always put me off, and god knows there are enough less daunting and more enjoyable topics out there to distract me...Vanamonde (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde, no, I don't have plans to revisit the Ayodhya dispute at this time. That might be more enjoyable than Kashmir conflict, but what can I say? Kashmir has erupted! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan/Iranian languages

Hi, you need to stop updating numbers randomly. Open a discussion on some talk page, provide your sources and the revised numbers, and get consensus for your changes. You should update the main pages only after obtaining consensus. .................... hi, my edit isnt unsourced, i see source and correct numbers from source, you can see india pakistan and bangeladesh source , this source provide 2016 numbers and percent of indo aryan, pls reverted it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Callofworld: If you are correcting as per source, please say so in your edit summary. Otherwise, it will get reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian Independence Act, 1947

You have reverted my edit calling it unexplained removal of sourced content. I checked the source and could not find what the article claims, that is why I modified it. You may want to check it yourself to see if the removed content was sourced. Srkris (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If you were correcting it as per source, you needed to say so in the edit summary.

Secondly, I don't think you were correcting it as per the source. There is no distinction made between India and Pakistan in the Act, nor does it call Pakistan a "new nation" and India an old nation. So, there was definitely WP:OR in your text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The point I was making is not that the reference to Pakistan as a new nation was sourced (it was undisputably a new nation in 1947, regardless of India being new or old, and regardless of international law treating India alone as continuing the nationhood of undivided India) but that there was no independence for the princely states contemplated in the "Indian" Indepedence Act. So my edit was not OR, even if it was unsourced, you cannot call all unsourced edits as OR. Srkris (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Srkris: The right thing to do in this situation is to tag the unsourced statement with a {{citation needed}} tag. The standard on Wikipedia is not sourcing, but verifiability. Unless you are confident that no source exists for the content, you shouldn't remove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Khurshid Anwar

Nice work; but you've got a few harv errors in there, so I thought I'd leave you a note about the script "User:Ucucha/HarvErrors", which I find immensely useful, not just to spot errors, but to keep track of which sources I am using/need to be used when rebuilding an article. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That was really quick! I think the harverrors are due to unused bibliography entries. They will get used in the remainder of the Kashmir section, when I get to expand it. I put it up there right now because I was getting tired of looking at the red link in the First Kashmir War page. But, thanks for looking over it so quickly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they're caused by a mismatch between in line cites and the bibliography, which this script highlights in large red letters. You linked to a page I had created (1946 Bihar riots), which is why I saw it so quickly. As an aside, read that talk page, if you happen to feel nostalgic for the good old days...Vanamonde (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, how I come full circle! I think that article needs to be beefed up. Reading Hajari and Ayesha Jalal, I get the feeling that the 1946 Bihar riots were the single most decisive event that led to the partition (arguably). Since Bihar was under a Congress ministry and the Centre as well, the Muslim League was able to say, "this is what happens to Muslims under the Hindu Raj". Punjab and NWFP went up in flames soon after that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan languages -

i dont know what i say! afd for a report with unregisted user! improve articles isnt ridiculous edits.he/she should be polite.Insult and ridicule!Remove unreasonable edited by me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Send a warning for what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For disruptive editing. Take care, or you'll be blocked for sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, oh my god!! funny. can u see my "disruptive editing"? 900 or 1347? can u add numbers ? i explain numbers in talk page. you can not see it. first you should see it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs)

@Callofworld: when an edit is reverted, you are supposed to open a discussion on the talk page of the article and generate consensus for your edit. If consensus is not possible, you cannot do the edit. Please stop posting on my talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok , i dont know it , ok , thanks. pls say to me source of 900 ? if you add numbers is more than 900! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 08:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, but i not make a mistake, i am not keep on your aryanic articles but say again : number in this article is wrong

ok about your comment, my english is intermediate and i proud it, enghlish language isnt important for me because of i know three language another. i guess from your user name you are born in india , i am like india and have a indian friend in out of wiki, my edits about aryan article restricted only in : numbers . many numbers in indo - iranian article is wrong. i was see and i like corect them, but u and your friends prevent and delete it. it is no important and i not keep on . i am understand in wikipedia isnt important that many number is wrong! my read and translate in english is very well but my type to english no. in my homeland english isnt official language but in india yes. It is important that in wiki is personal taste admins! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_languages

• i was understand in wikipedia 900 = 1086! 329+ 200+100+ 70+ 50+40 +38 +30+ 30+ 26+21+ 20+ 20+ 18 + 16 + 15+ 15 + 13 + 9+ 8 + 6 + 4+ 3+3+ 2 million=1086 million, with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

900 and 1086 are close enough. Doing calculations like this error-prone and, in the long run, hard to maintain, because the numbers keep changing as populations grow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

of course, but should not attack to person who correct numbers. 900 and 1086 close enough? 186 mil more than 185 country population! every year numbers should up to date, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi and English language

http://agrao.50webs.com/gandhi/gandhi_pri_edukado.htm

• http://www.languageinindia.com/april2005/earlygandhi1.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language_in_South_Asia
• aryanic language have a honor , speak to Occupying country isnt honor.From its earliest days, the language was brought into South Asia by various Turkic and Afghan dynasties. With the advent of the Turko-Afghan Delhi Sultanate and the Turco-Mongol Mughal dynasty, the language was grounded in the court and the administration. Beginning in 1843, however, English gradually replaced Persian in importance in South Asia as the British had full suzerainty over South Asia.[1] Evidence of Persian's historical influence there can be seen in the extent of its influence on the languages of the South Asia. Many of these areas have seen a certain influence by Persian not only in literature but also in the speech of the common man.[citation needed] Persian exerted a strong influence on Urdu, and a relatively strong influence on Punjabi, and Sindhi in India and Pakistan. Other languages like Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Rajasthani and Bengali also have a sizeable amount of loanwords from Persian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi was a nationalist and he was fighting the English. That fight is now over. There is nothing wrong with the Indians using the English language now if they feel like using it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

We are (aryan people - from anatoli to mynmar not forget 1857 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey ) england change all of history of india, pakistan, afghanistan, iran, and other related country and languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pandey:_The_Rising - viva gandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sirius

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sirius. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

Thanks for reminding me to add summary while editing. I will try my best to add summary from next time onwards. As far as my recent edit to Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, I just wanted to make article neutral. "India and Jammu and Kashmir" gives a biased impression that "India doesn't include J&K". That's why I made that edit to make the article more neutral. Thanks Ind akash (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That is written as per the source. In this context, J&K cannot be presumed to be part of India. It is disputed territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

But it can't be presumed that "It is not a part of India" either. Wikipedia should be neutral. One party claims it to be disputed and the other party says that it is not disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ind akash (talk • contribs) 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How about the Kashmiris? Are they a "party" in your calculation? Has India not promised them that the accession of the state would be subject to the "wishes of the people"? Has India forgotten? This kind of thing is described in the Puranas as "maya descended on them", like for example, when Bharata's father Dushyanta "forgot" that he had married Shakuntala and fathered a child. It is that very Bharata that India is named after, is it not? Has maya not yet lifted from India? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I just said Wikipedia should be neutral, who is right or who is wrong is not going to be decided on Wikipedia, right? Ind akash (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"Neutral" on Wikipedia means reporting the scholarly consensus, not our own independent decision of whatever is supposed to be "neutral". See WP:NPOV. I have already said that the wording is taken from a reliable source. Your continued argumentation is not neutrality, it is WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You are far more experienced wikipedian than me and I respect that. Could you please tell me, does WP:POV pushing generally apply to talk page discussions? And what did I present aggressively? Ind akash (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does apply to talk pages as well. I wouldn't say that you are being particularly aggressive yet. However, you did say that merely writing "India and Jammu and Kashmir" gives a "biased impression". You seem to be arguing that the Indian government's position is "neutral" and everything else is "biased". The fact is, the rest of the world regards Kashmir at least as an unsettled matter. India has been given allowance to settle the issue bilaterally. Until it does so, it is disputed. Given that the most serious unrest in the history of Kashmir is currently going on, it is quite unseemly to argue these positions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

"POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article...", if in your own view, I am not being "particularly aggressive yet", could you please tell me why did you claim that I am "POV-pushing"? When you say that "The rest of the world regards Kashmir at least as an 'unsettled matter'..." why are you seemingly keen to use the word 'disputed' which is used by the Pakistani government? And what do you mean by "India has been given 'allowance' to settle the issue bilaterally..."? Doesn't the Shimla Agreement call for a bilateral resolution of all the issues? You claim that" the most serious unrest in the history of Kashmir is currently going on", is it bigger than the 1947 and the 1990's? Ind akash (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You were certainly being aggressive, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you took the trouble to initiate a discussion here. But I think you have now exhausted your good will.

The term "disputed territory" is used for any region that is not internationally recognized to be an integral part of any particular country. Kashmir is definitely such. How often people use that term depends upon how intense the dispute is and how polite they are trying to be. But the frequency or infrequency of usage doesn't change the fact of the matter one bit. See this source for example.

I have no interest in engaging in WP:FORUMy discussions with you. So, please don't post here unless you intend to discuss some article content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Iranians

diff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs) 09:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Callofworld:, Indo-Iranians were a historical people. They don't exist any more. The current lead of Indo-Iranians is wrong, and Naseer Dashti, whatever he might be saying, is not a reliable source for history. Joshua Jonathan, perhaps you can find time to straighten this out? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

write in simple english : "perhaps you can find time to straighten this out? " what mean? indo-iranian now is here, from iran plateau to indian subcontineit -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calloftheworld (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callofworld (talk • contribs)

I was requesting Joshua Jonathan to correct the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with the lead? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It makes it sound as if "Indio-Iranians" is a currently existing group, which leads Callofworld to add an infobox. But they were a historical group, who split up into Indic and Iranian groups millennia ago. This needs to be explained and sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(comment) Just struck the signature, as Callofworld states it is not the same account as Calloftheworld. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Telugu language

Hello Kautilya3, we've had quite a bit of contact before and I noticed that in this edit you added back content that is, yes, sourced, but it ignores the huge controversy surrounding the Indus script, and which modern day Indian scripts it is a precursor of, if any. User:117.199.234.166 has edit warred to keep this in the article all the while ignoring my attempts to engage them at their talk page. I warned him that if he did it again he could expect to be reported at WP:AN/EW, but your edit has thrown a wrench in that. Can you please explain to me why you think having this in the article is appropriate? I think it was an unintentional error on your part, perhaps you didn't look very far in the page's history, but please clarify. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Psiĥedelisto, you are right. I didn't look at the edit history. I just reverted it for the reason given, "unexplained deletion of sourced content". If there is edit-warring by IPs, perhaps it is best to get it semi-protected. I will leave it in your good hands. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all that you do Kautilya Ji! Svabhiman (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you Svabhiman! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

kamma caste

Historian K. B. Choudary claimed that the Kammas were the direct descendants of king Durjaya of Suryavamsam , and the modern Kamma community is therefore the offspring of the Durjayas, the Telugu Chodas and Eastern Chalukyans .they merging themselves in Kamma community.

K. B. Choudary is not a "historian" according to our our criteria. He is more like a caste propagandist. He cannot be used as a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Funny..

... how Madurai nayak vamsa can find your page but not his own. At least he doesn't seem to notice anything on it. Anyway, I've given him a ds notice, for all the good it may do. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Yeah, this problem seems quite common. They find our pages because our posts have a link to our talk pages. But they don't seem to know that they have their own talk pages. I notice that I gave MNV a notice about top-posting a couple of weeks ago, and he still top-posted here this morning. But he did provide a nice citation on the Kamma (caste) page, which I enjoyed reading. So, this user is in a different class from the other caste warriors. Hopefully, he won't trip up. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was the way he continued to top-post after you told him that I meant to remark on. It's very much against his own interests, so presumably he'd comply if he saw your note. (Or your new note today.) I'll eat my best cardie if he sees the DS alert, or makes anything of it. But I'm glad to hear he's a cut above the rest. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC).

Please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Executive Order 13767. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

I don't wish to get further involved into this, but alot of these recent additions on this article (Overseas Pakistani) sounded ridiculously WP:OR, self-interpreted and overal WP:AGENDA-loaded to me. I dont think any of the stuff I removed belonged in any way on the article in question. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Further related to this. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1947 Jammu massacres & Kashmir conflict

If there was 'MORE' in-migration of Muslims or if the Muslim population grew at faster rate than the rest, these figures would be underestimates. If there was 'MORE' in-migration of non-Muslims, these figures would be overestimates.

In that context, "more" is added to indicate that the in-migration of one group is more than the in-migration of the other group. It conveys the better sense. For example, in the first sentence it means - if the net in-migration of Muslims is greater than the net in-migration of non-Muslims, then figures would be underestimates. What's wrong in adding that?

And about 'Population figures' section - I don't understand why we are comparing the census stats of 1941 and 2011. I mean its a time span of 70 years and there'll be huge demographic changes in such a big gap. Our estimates will be highly flawed. Why don't we take some 1951/1961 or at least 1971 population stats to compare with 1941 figures so that the estimates might be somewhat more reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "more" bit, it is not grammatically correct to write "more" without a corresponding "than". I understand what you are trying to say, but it is implicitly understood that estimates are affected by various factors and they can counteract each other. In reality, we know that there was no in-migration of Muslims. So it is a moot point.

As to which census to use, 1961 census would be ideal. (There was no census taken in 1951 in J&K). If you have access to the 1961 census, please feel free to add those figures. I should warn you that it is not easy to figure out which numbers to use because the districts have been contantly rearranged in J&K. The 2011 census is a bit easier, because the districts break nicely with respect to the 1941 districts. I don't think the estimates would vary greatly depending on the census. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

http://blog.cpsindia.org/2016/02/religion-data-of-census-2011-xv-jammu.html

This site has 1961 figures of total population in the Jammu province and its Muslim proportion. We can compare it with the total population and the overall Muslim proportion of 1941 by summing the figures of all the districts which were already listed in the wiki page. The site appeared reliable to me, but I'm not so sure. You verify and tell me whether its trustworthy. One more thing, there is no district wise data in it. And I don't understand why a district-wise analysis of 1961 census is required to have an overall estimate. I think the total number is sufficient since there is no confusion regarding the boundaries of Jammu Division in 1961 as the line of control has clearly formed by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Without district data, you don't have anything to compare with. There was nothing called Indian-controlled Jammu province in 1941. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the stats in 1961. What is the need to break up the 1961 figures into districts? There is a clearly defined India-controlled Jammu province in 1961, and so even without district data, those total figures can be taken for comparison without confusion. Regarding 1941 figures, we already have district data for them and the total figures can be obtained by adding the individual figures of all the districts which are in today's Indian administered Jammu division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not so. Poonch has been divided. If I take a rough estimate of one-third of the Poonch district remaining in India, then I get a figure of 136,616 'lost' Muslims for the whole of the Jammu province. That figure is too low. How do we square it with the Pakistani claim that 200,000 Muslims came as refugees? Where are the people that got killed? We can't make any claims unless we have the district-wise census data. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What about the Kotli, Mirpur and Bhimber districts which are now in Azad Kashmir? Do you have some idea of the picture in those Jammu regions regarding what happened over there during these massacres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all the non-Muslims there either got killed or escaped to the Indian-adminstered Kashmir. The 1951 census showed negligible numbers of non-Muslims in entire Azad Kashmir (a small fraction of 1%). See Kashmir conflict#Reasons behind the dispute for the refugee figures reported by the UN Commission. In my opinion, both the numbers are inflated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Those numbers also include the refuges after Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Not necessarily inflated as you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really. When we compare the 1941 and 1961 census figures, the difference represents all losses, war and non-war. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is we cannot verify all figures based on our estimates. Those numbers might include all the refugees during partition and war who crossed the border from either side of the Kashmir. They may not necessarily belong to the limited regions in which we made our estimates. Also one of our assumptions is that the growth rates of Muslims and non Muslims is equal, which is not true. The growth rate of Muslims was always higher. For example, during 2001-11, Muslims in the Jammu region have grown by 32.3 percent compared to the Hindu growth of 16.4 percent. If we take any decade, the Muslims could have probably had an above 10% growth rate more than non Muslims, and that's a very considerable factor. Now even if we take into account the inmigration of 3,00,000 (highest estimated figure) Hindus after 90's into consideration, the growth rate factor still can effect our estimates to a big extent.

http://blog.cpsindia.org/2016/02/religion-data-of-census-2011-xv-jammu.html

http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/stateplan/sdr_jandk/sdr_jkch2.pdf

By the away, I got the Indian Poonch district's population in 1961 and 1971 from the above two links. Assuming it had the same 90% Muslim population, we can subtract its population figures from the total Jammu Division's population and its Muslim share (available from the same links) and have our estimates for the loss of Muslims in 'Jammu excluding Poonch' by comparing those figures with the 1941 ones. I did the calculations, and got the similar estimates using 1961 and 71 figures - i.e., around 2,50,000. So I did not bother to update anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not true that the growth rate of Muslims was always higher. Between 1961–1971, the census figures show a growth rate of about 40% for Hindus and 17% for Muslims. I don't know why the Hindus should have so much higher growth than the average and Muslims so much lower. I think this is anomalous. The overall population growth is in line with the Kashmir Valley. So there were no migration effects. My belief is that the religious demography figures were wrong (engineered somehow). I think the 2011 census figures are more reliable than the earlier ones.

Another point is that the formula for estimating Muslim 'losses' is not linear. Since the various districts had vastly different rates of loss, you get completely different figures if you total up the district estimates than if you estimate it for the Jammu province as a whole. So that is another reason for discounting the 1961 census. Unless we have reliable districtwise Muslim population figures, they are not good for making estimates. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Another important piece of information, from Mahajan's memoirs, is that both the Police chief and the Army chief in Jammu were Muslims in 1947. Mahajan also says that half the Police force was Muslim and they were not functional. There were raids from Pakistan all along the border (this is confirmed from other sources) and the local Muslims were helping the raiders in attacking the Hindus. After Mahajan took charge on 15 October, he and Maharaja visited Jammu, Kathua and Bhimber between 18–21 October and tried to establish "law and order". He doesn't say how they did it, but one might guess that they disempowered the Muslim officers and gave more leeway to the Hindu officials. So I think this is when the trouble started, relatively late in October, just before the raiders invaded on 22 October. On 26/27 October the Maharaja acceded to India. So the 'massacres' lasted only about a week or two, and they could not have been as extensive as they are made out in the propagandist sources. The migration of Jammu Muslims started much earlier, around 25 September. At that time, there would have only been the usual kind of riots rather than 'massacres'. A lot of people, especially women and children, left voluntarily, anticipating trouble rather than because of it. (Mainprice's report in The Times agrees with all of this. He says that this happened three days before the invasion. He says 237,000 Muslims "disappeared". But he doesn't know how many of them migrated.)

So, on the whole, I think 50,000 is a reasonable estimate for the number killed. The estimates of 200,000 killed is a massive exaggeration. Likewise, 500,000 Muslim refugees is also a wild exaggeration. There were only about 500,000 Muslims in the entire Jammu province (excluding Poonch). And, about two-thirds of them are still there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

References

long post

You are talking wide speculations about this subject bro, on the basis of vague and trivial sources, and ignoring everything else. I don't know why. You are saying the anti Muslim violence started in the late October and that the massacres lasted for a week or two. And I don't understand why are you trying to paint a picture that says "it all started after raids from Pakistan." That's no where near the truth. Hari Singh's Dogra rule was always resentful to his subjects since so long. The Muslims in his region were always treated terribly by the administration. Following the partition of India, the Poonchi Muslims saw a chance to overthrow the Maharaja and have their independent or Pakistani government. This gave rise to the Poonch rebellion (I wish there was a Wiki page on this), which eventually led to the formation of Azad Kashmir in later stages. Hari Singh who intended to brutally suppress this rebellion and keep his kingdom with the majority Hindu support instigated extensive and systematic violence with his forces. Moreover unlike the Kashmir valley which remained mostly calm during this transition period, the Jammu province which was contiguous to Punjab, experienced mass migration which caused violent and brutal inter-religious activity. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving in March 1947, bringing "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities. This provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims (which obviously had the administration's support and was successful in the areas with a major non Muslim population), which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot". According to Chattha, "the Kashmiri Muslims were to pay a heavy price in September–October 1947 for the earlier violence of West Punjab." These were all the essential factors and this is where it all started. From our sources ---> //////////////////////////////// Anti-Maharaja activity possibly commenced as early as February 1947, and almost certainly was occurring by June 1947, when Poonchis mounted a ‘no tax’ campaign. A press note issued on 12 September by the J&K Government confirms this campaign: ‘Early in August in ... Poonch Jagir, evilly disposed persons launched a violent agitation against the administration of the jagir in favour of civil disobedience and No Tax Campaign’. The Muslim unrest may also have included a ‘no rent’ element, a distinct possibility, given the Poonchis’ grievances over land. The Maharaja and his armed forces moved to suppress this campaign. Around 15 August, they may also have begun to repress Muslims, by killing them or by forcefully disarming them. Poonch had 50,000 ex-soldiers of the British Indian Army, many of whom still had guns. The Maharaja felt threatened by this, and in July ordered all holders of arms to deposit these in police stations. But many arms deposited by Muslim ex-soldiers were then handed out by the Maharaja’s police to Hindu and Sikh families, raising communal fears. Muslims responded by purchasing fresh weapons from arms bazaars in neighbouring NWFP province. Sardar Ibrahim Khan, a prominent Poonch politician, organized an armed Muslim force that soon staged a revolt. A 1948 publication stated that ‘hundreds’ of people in Bagh, a district in Poonch, were killed at a hoisting of the Pakistan flag to celebrate Independence Day. Two short telegrams to Jinnah on 29 August from the ‘Muslims of Poonch’ and the ‘Muslims of Bagh’ also spoke of anti-Muslim brutality by the Maharaja’s forces around the same time. The Muslim Conference politician who became the founder President of Azad Kashmir, Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan from Rawalakot in Poonch, was quoted by a 1949 publication as stating that the Maharaja had unleashed a ‘reign of terror’ on 24 August 1947 that killed 500 people. While the number of casualties cannot be confirmed, ‘shoot-on-sight’orders were apparently issued to army officers on 2 September 1947. The reaction of the ruler’s predominantly Hindu army to Poonch Muslims’ pro-Pakistan activities boosted the anti-Maharaja ‘cause’ in Poonch and incited Poonchis to take further action. In response to incidents around Poonch that invariably involved Muslims, the Maharaja’s army fired on crowds, burned houses and villages indiscriminately, plundered, arrested people, and imposed local martial law. Indeed, because ‘trouble continued … the State forces were compelled to deal with it with a heavy hand’. Until such oppressive actions, the anti-Maharaja cause probably had little backing. ‘Substantial men’ told Symonds that ‘they would never have joined such a rash enterprise’ opposing the Maharaja ‘but for the folly of the Dogras who burnt whole villages where only a single family was involved in the revolt’. Such ‘folly’ motivated some Poonch Muslims to organise a people’s resistance movement. It is unlikely that Pakistanis were creating all of the Maharaja’s troubles in western Jammu. Indeed, a number of factors suggest that the Poonch uprising was an indigenous affair. Pakistan was fully occupied dealing with the almost overwhelming physical, administrative and emotional ramifications of partition. Any Pakistani support or leadership for Jammuites was probably not officially sanctioned. Rather, Punjabi or NWFP Muslims, with whom Jammu Muslims had close ethnic, familial, cultural, geographical and economic links, would have provided support on that basis. For example, some ‘sudhans’ from Poonch considered themselves to be ‘sudho zai Pathans’ (Pukhtoons), which, for them, explained why ‘the Pathans lost no time’ coming to help J&K Muslims. Furthermore – and importantly – Poonch Muslims had the capability, given their military abilities and experiences, and the intent, given their anti-Maharaja grievances, to foment and sustain anti-Maharaja actions themselves. They did not need any Pakistani encouragement or assistance. ////////////////////////////////////////////// All in all, the 1947 Jammu massacres occurred due to the 2 main following reasons - a) Extension of partition violence due to the migration into the Jammu region {we need to carefully elaborate on this in the article}. b) In the process of suppressing the Poonch rebellion {we need to establish firmly this in our article}, Hari Singh ordered the killings and helping the extremist Hindus in the whole of Jammu division with political motivations to ethnically cleanse the Muslim population and to ensure a non-Muslim majority in the Jammu region of the state. And the massacres with the help of the ruler evidently started all over Jammu in parallel with his attempts to crush the Poonch rebellion, i.e., at least by early or mid September, and not just one or two weeks before the accession. Also I didn't get how you had come up with that number of 50000. There is clearly no mention of such a number from any noted source nor there was such a calculated estimate. I know none of the numbers is certain but the least estimate we have out of all the sources is 70000 [A team of two Englishmen jointly commissioned by the governments of India and Pakistan investigated seven major incidents of violence between 20 October – 9 November 1947, totalling 70,000 deaths]. I'm not taking even that 70000 on the face value to be exact, but also there is absolutely no reason to believe even that least estimate is still exaggerated by 20000. Regarding the the figures of migration, I'm not stating that they're definitely not inflated. I only told I'm not sure of anything. We made our estimates for 'lost Muslims' in only Jammu division (as I have already said, after trying through different ways, every time I got a similar estimate of around 250000 and so I ceased to think about which is the correct way to use) and I personally didn't make any estimates for 'lost Hindus' in today's Pakistan or Azad Kashmir. See, refugees from other regions, not necessarily from Jammu province (in which we made our estimates), might have crossed the border from that region and those figures might have included these people also. I'm saying it's possible. I'm not insisting in validating any figures and in my opinion, none of the figures (low or high) can be validated completely in this matter, as the incident is a 70 year old one and any of the records from then cannot be taken as accurate. What I am only trying to say is we must examine things and draw our conclusions from a broader perspective like an academic while documenting articles, rather than from our preconceptions as I mistakenly did in my very first stages of editing Wikipedia (you know this if you remember). Please take no offence anywhere. Thank you.

As a friendly request, I want you to take a look at the first sentence of this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir

I agree to that line, but I don't feel it's allowed to use it there that way. So I'm asking you. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the line because it doesn't belong there.

Regarding your long post, I can see that you are still troubled by the Jammu happenings. But that is not going to allow you to examine all the sources from a neutral standpoint. Just look at the fact that you have branded the testimony of the Prime Minister of J&K, later a Chief Justice of India, as "vague and trivial", while you seem to accept the testimony of Sardar Ibrahim, the Muslim Conference leader that led the rebellion as authentic. 500 people killed in Poonch on 24 August, while the Army and Police of J&K were being commanded by British officers?

In any case, I have verified from multiple sources that the Police Chief in Jammu (probably an SP) was Muslim until the Maharaja and Mahajan visited on 18 October. So, now, any sources that don't tell me this information either suffer from inadequate research or they are brushing the facts under the carpet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian Copland struggles with the same issues we are struggling with. The numbers don't add up. He starts by taking:

For instance, we have a fair idea, thanks to a headcount done in Pakistan in 1949, of the number of Muslim emigrants from Kashmir (almost all of them, it is safe to assume, escapees from the Jammu region). The figure given is 333,964.

This is an inflated figure in my book. When he does the calculation, he finds:

Obviously an adjustment is required [for Mirpur]; the problem is to work out how big it should be, bearing in mind that if one removes all of the 310,000 Muslims recorded in the 1941 census as living in Mirpur from the equation, one is left not with a deficit but with a surplus (which of course cannot possibly be correct).

Phew! This is even without taking into account Poonch, two-thirds of which went to Pakistan! Then he says:

Interestingly, an early official calculation made in Pakistan, using headcount data, came up with a figure of 50,000 deaths, which may prove, in the light of future research, to be closer to the truth than the Times man’s guesstimate or Statesman editor Ian Stephens’ assertion that 200,000 Jammu Muslims were killed.

Then he resorts to guesstimates:

For the present, however, we must make do with the information we have. Putting the claims of the refugees, the contemporary estimates, and such information as can be gleaned from the census data together, I think we can safely say that the death toll from partition-related violence in the princely states was in the vicinity of 50,000 in Alwar and Bharatpur, 80,000 in Jammu, 70,000 in the Sikh states, 10,000 in Bahawalpur and perhaps 5000 in Rajputana and CI—a total of 215,000.

He pulls the figure of 80,000 out of thin air, probably to account for the "Englishmen's estimates". But the important bit here how Jammu compares with the other princely states. Note that Bahawalpur was a Muslim state, where non-Muslims were killed. Finally, look at Mirpur as well:

This was the 'liquidation of over twenty thousand non-Muslims on and after 25 November 1947 out of a total of twenty five thousand' gathered in Mirpur for shelter and protection. A 'greatly shocked' Sardar Ibrahim painfully confirmed that some Hindus were 'disposed of' in Mirpur in November 1947, although he does not mention any figures.

The only reason you are talking about Jammu rather than any of these other places is because of Pakistani propaganda. The last thing you should do as a Wikipedian is to fall for such propaganda. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And, here is the most damning evidence of all that I have seen. A survivor of the Mirpur massacre narrates:

Suddenly, we heard a commanding voice asking why soldiers were killing the boys. Another introduced him as Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim, President of Azad Kashmir Government. Then, I opened my eyes and saw that the butcher got up and saluted the Sardar and bowed his head in front of him. The butcher replied that he was a soldier of Pakistan, follower of its president Mohammed Ali Jinnah and was following the orders of his superiors.

The so-called "boy" was a college student, son of a lawyer in Mirpur and Sardar Ibrahim had known his father. Did he make it up? Did he misremember? I have no idea. What I do know is that India has chosen not to propagandise this kind of information, in the interest of peace. Other people don't have such an interest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Arey bhai... 'After Mahajan took charge on 15 October, he and Maharaja visited Jammu, Kathua and Bhimber between 18–21 October and tried to establish law and order.' As you said, this is what is written in Mahajan's autobiography. And from this, you interpreted something else altogether according to your convenience and concluded that the violence majorly lasted for only a week or two. He neither stated that massacres had not occurred earlier due to Hari Singh's troops nor testified that they substantially started after 18th October. He just said he went there with Hari Singh during then in an attempt to set things right. Also going by your logic, why would the former Chief Justice of India refer to 'dis-empowering the Muslim officers and gave more leeway to the Hindu officials' as 'establishing law and order'? He definitely knew what actually happened during then. Was he being sarcastic?(I'm kidding!) Or was he hiding it under the carpet? Given his reputation, he would possibly do nothing of that sort. He would rather not refer to it at all. So I called that a speculation and commented that that source was vague(in the sense, unclear) and trivial(does not provide any consequential information). I was not doubting Mahajan. Coming to Sardar Ibrahim leading the rebellion as an authentic, I don't think that makes him a devil. He fought against a dictatorial ruler Hari Singh and won. He is a hero to them. And as you mentioned that he is a Muslim Conference leader, all leaders of Muslim Conference are not bad or dishonest people, if that's what you meant. Anyways he might have lied about figures in that testimony and he might be an evil guy. I don't know. I was only pointing to the dates and timelines of incidents from the sources. "The only reason you are talking about Jammu rather than any of these other places is because of Pakistani propaganda. The last thing you should do as a Wikipedian is to fall for such propaganda." - Now seriously, this is funny. I do talk about other places too. That aside, should no one talk about Jammu massacres, or have specific interest in it? I am particularly troubled by the happenings of Jammu. Irrespective of anything, it is a fact that the massacres against Muslims occurred in huge numbers and were carried out by Hari Singh and his forces, which gives it a unique dimension. Leave figures, 50,000, or 70,000, or whatever. Gandhi himself observed that Hari Singh was responsible for the large scale killings. And what bothers me is, we Indians claim the legal right over Kashmir, using just the instrument of accession signed by such a guy, as if he was a very legitimate people's representative, that too after having a provisional agreement for a future plebiscite that never occurred. I don't know about the propaganda thing. But propaganda or no propaganda, I do know very well that we are not saints. Everybody knows how all these years India has been 'peacefully' communicating to Kashmiris through rigged elections, dismissal of elected governments, through AFSPA, PSA, encounters and corruption. We have proudly made it the highest militarized region of the world with extreme violations of human rights. Kashmiri youth will tell you how India has become synonymous to them with an army bunker or a police vehicle or a ranting panelist on prime time television who is unempathetic to the people of Kashmir. I know what Pakistan has been doing is highly unfair. But we're not a country like Pakistan to compare with, and we have a far better and democratic political setup in here to give such an excuse. Playing Pakistan card for everything and hiding behind it without acknowledging our mistakes doesn't make us look any better. It further tarnishes our image as a country that advocates human rights and freedom. It is not India vs Pakistan, but it is the people of Kashmir we are looking at, and they have been deeply alienated and oppressed by our governments since past. Most importantly, as a citizen of India, I have expectations from the Indian government and not the Pakistani government. I'm more concerned with what is happening from our side as a nation. Whether you want to agree or not, Kashmir is the biggest blot on India's democracy. Take a chill pill. Vamsee614 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Vamsee, honestly, I am getting a little tired of this. There is a great deal of WP:OR in what you are saying here and what you wrote in the article. I am likely to revert most of it.

As for Mahajan, he was working for the Maharaja, and he is not going to tell us all the state secrets. That wouldn't be responsible. Nor is he going to say things that will push the blame on him. However, when he gives us a verifiable fact, he can't possibly lie. The fact that the Jammu Police was headed by a Muslim Police Chief is one of those verifiable facts. In my opinion, this makes it highly unlikely that 'massacres' happened during the tenure of this Police Chief. They could have only happened after the Maharaja and Mahajan visited and possibly fiddled with the 'law and order'. Other people who are pushing propaganda are not even telling us that Jammu had a Muslim police chief. They are brushing it under the carpet. It is an inconvenient fact that undercuts their propaganda.

By the way, India never had any love for Hari Singh. Please get your facts straight. The accession had to be signed by him because it was his legal right. But Nehru also had endorsement from Sheikh Abdullah before he took action. Hari Singh was then deposed within months after this. If you start equating India and Hari Singh, you are way off the mark.

And, what India is doing in Kashmir right now has absolutely nothing to do with the Jammu massacres. You are seriously mixing up issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, why would he even talk about it when he doesn't want to tell anything about it? I agree with the 'Jammu had a Police Chief' thing and I know its verifiable. If someone is trying to withhold it, its unfair and you mention it wherever you feel it is necessary. However it is insufficient data to say that massacres didn't happen in the tenure of the Muslim Police Chief and that Hari Singh didn't middle with the law and order before. And in my opinion, the 'law and order' which Mahajan said is not what you meant. If it is what you say it is, he wouldn't have talked about it at all as he would have known what actually happened with that.

I never said India had love her Hari Singh, nor I equated our country with him. But I'm only asking where is the basis for our claim on Kashmir other than Hari Singh's accession? Where is the people's consent? The J&K Constituent Assembly which ratified the instrument was later dissolved. Sheikh Abdullah of whom you were saying was jailed in the later years when he tried to advocate independence. Where is the plebiscite that had been added as a provisional agreement and was promised by our founding father Nehru? We've done absolutely nothing to reconcile with the people of Kashmir since 70 years, instead we've greatly mishandled and messed up things. We made our hands too dirty to mend the issues. I know what India is doing in Kashmir right now has nothing to do with the Jammu massacres, I was not talking about massacres. You said India has chosen not to propagandize something in the interest of 'peace'. In reply to that, I said all this to state we already have much stain on our part regarding the 'peace' thing. This is my humble opinion. Vamsee614 (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No, nothing "unfair" about it. A scholarly source has to mention all the pertinent facts. Snedden would have certainly mentioned it, had he known about it. But he was writing a book about Azad Kashmir and all his sources were Azad Kashmiri. And, it is these sources that suppressed the information. Why? because they were trying build a theory that the "Hindu Dogra State" was killing Muslims. It is inconvenient to mention the fact that this "Hindu Dogra State" had a Muslim police chief. You are being totally disingenuous in ignoring the fact.

And Snedden is not being entirely objective. The Azad Kashmiri rebels were waging a war on the Maharaja's State, and each of them has their version of the events. One has to examine both the sides before making up one's mind as to who is telling the truth. Snedden is either ignoring the version of the State or brushing it off. For example, when Henry Lawrence Scott, the State's Army Chief mentions that 400 Pakistani infiltrators came in to instigate communal violence, Snedden says, "no, they were Azad Kashmiris (Poonchis/Mirpuris) who had escaped to Pakistan and came back with arms; Scott was confused." This is not objective. Scott had worked in J&K long enough to know the difference between Azad Kashmiris and Pakistanis. You can't dismiss pertinent evidence like that. This makes Snedden biased in my view, and I will treat him as a biased source.

Regarding the larger Kashmir dispute that you are talking about, let me just say that I am a Wikipedian and my job is to inform. It is not my place to make judgements on any party, nor to identify with them as being a part of "we". You should not do it either because it is prohibited under ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is your talk page and not an article. Wikipedians are also humans and I think they can have identities and views, at least in user talk pages. Anyway I apologize if I was wrong. And to that Muslim police chief thing - no, I was not being disingenuous. I only genuinely felt, that particular point of testimony doesn't carry much weight as to infer what you opined. I don't say it is false. In my humble opinion, Mahajan pointing out that Jammu had a Muslim SP who was being mischievous and partisan, cannot be taken to rule out that Hari Singh controlled the forces and ordered the massacres since well before 18th of October. And I didn't want to bring this up and talk about it before as its too controversial and demoralizing. But now I want you to have a look at it. By the way this is not mere propaganda, it is observed by many sources including Ved Bhasin. It may be untrue, but it surely is not mere propaganda.

Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehr Chand Mahajan told a delegation of Hindus who met him in the palace when he arrived in Jammu that now when the power was being transferred to the people they should better demand parity. When one of them associated with the National Conference asked how they could demand parity when there was so much difference in population ratio, pointing to the Ramnagar natural reserve below, where some bodies of Muslims were still lying, he said, “the population ratio too can change.”

Vamsee614 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know Ved Bhasin's testimony. And, I believe it.

But note also what Bhasin says of the timing:

The communal riots took place in Jammu after instrument of accession was signed, after Sheikh Abdullah took over as head of administration – that is November.

Some riots were taking place earlier also, but mass killings, when the convoys went to Pakistan and were butchered, happened when Sheikh Abdullah was head of the administration. He didn’t intervene or could not. I don’t know the reasons but perhaps his feeling was that the Muslims in Jammu were not his supporters.

As for the Muslim intrigues in Jammu, we have some idea:

Captain Hasan Khan talks of the formation of a Revolutionary Council of Muslim State Army officers in order to free Kashmir, of which he was offered Chairmanship. This council was to work for military revolution in Kashmir and hence only junior officers joined in it but some seniors did not agree to participate. According to Captain Hasan Khan the objective of the Council was to topple the Maharaja as soon as the British quit the country and accede to Pakistan. (Dani, p.338)

Hasan Khan and Major Mohammad Afzal Khan agreed that the Dogra regime should be toppled in Kashmir. Later they contacted Captain Mohammad Mansha Khan, Major Mohammad Sher Kiyani, Major Sayyid Ghazanfar Ali Shah and Major Mohammad Din in Srinagar. They all agreed to support the proposal. Later Major Mohammad Aslam Khan was also contacted and was entrusted to work in Jammu... Then a military council was set up and the members vowed to act simultaneously by attacking and occupying military cantonments on 14th August 1947. But this scheme could not materialise as the officers selected in different sectors were posted out to other places. It is this transfer which brought Col. Hasan Khan to Bunji.

See also Gilgit-before 1947 by Ghansara Singh Jamwal.

The Maharaja and Major General Henry Scott apparently knew about the intrigues. Scott cleverly transferred the officers in order to foil their efforts. But this could have only been a stop-gap measure.

Mahajan's testimony makes sense in the face of all this evidence. There was a state-wide intrigue by the Muslim officers, and some unknown number of Muslim soldiers were involved, all incitable to a rebellion. Those in the western districts had already rebelled. There were raids along 200 miles of border with Pakistan (from Kathua to Bhimber). There were Muslim conspirators in Jammu, amassing arms in mosques. The Maharaja knew about the Pashtun tribes being incited for a jihad in the Frontier agencies. He was besieged from all sides. His reaction has to be gauged against all these provocations. Under the Kashmir State law, Dogra Rajputs were allowed to bear arms, and nobody else was. Under the circumstances, arming the Dogras can be seen as a defensive measure, to provide a backup force to neutralise the rebels/conspirators. (Of course, in the charged atmosphere of 1947, these arms were liable to get misused.) The Maharaja also seems to have had a policy of arming the Hindu/Sikh refugees for 'self-defence'. And, he was also collaborating with the RSS. These are the known facts.

When the Maharaja left Srinagar on 26 October, he knew in his heart of hearts that that was the last he was going to see of Kashmir. He said as much to his son Karan Singh (noted in his memoirs). Thus, his attitude seems to have been that Kashmir was lost, he should save at least Jammu for himself. This would have led him to ethnic cleansing. (What else was Partition if not ethnic cleansing?) Mahajan would have been duty-bound to support his policies, to the extent that his conscience allowed. Whether he participated in it himself, I can't say. It is hard for me to see how he could have risen high in the judicial community (even under the colonial regime) if he wasn't a reasonably straight guy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Both Shubh Mathur and Ilyas Chattha say that Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal "estimates the number of casualties between 200,000 and 300,000." Can you see that estimate anywhere in her article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Arey bro, 2-300,000 causalities is undoubtedly exaggeration and propaganda. Leave it.

And alas! I didn't know about this. It means riots happened after accession also. I don't understand how they took place so massively after Sheikh Abdullah became the PM. Anyhow its my bad that I missed this. 'Under the Kashmir State law, Dogra Rajputs were allowed to bear arms, and nobody else was.' - can you tell me the source(s) which you got this from? I want to know by whom, when and why this law was introduced, and in what all places it was implemented.

Partition was not purely ethnic cleansing bro, at least the early Indian leaders didn't see it that way. After Pakistan had to be separated, they had a vision of a secular state and did endorse for an India where people of all religions can live in peace. Apparently, they have succeeded to a very major extent.

About Mahajan, no comments. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about exaggeration/propaganda, I am talking about scholars writing in this decade citing a source (Anuradha Bhasin) written in this decade. Where did the 300,000 come from? If this is the amount of blatant distortion happening in front of our eyes, how much can we rely on these souces? (And I am really pained to see Shubh Mathur join the club of propagandists as well.)

I am not sure that the 237,000 figure is propaganda. It is more likely to be a "conspiracy". Mainprice, the guy who came up with the 237,000 figure, was the Assistant Political Agent at the Gilgit Agency (i.e., an Assistant District Collector). His boss, Roger Bacon (equivalent to a District Collector), immediately took up a job in Pakistan in Tribal areas and probably participated in the organisation of the tribal invasion. Indian sources also state that he was the brain behind the Gilgit coup, whereby the Gilgit Scouts overthrew the Maharaja's governor and handed Gilgit to Pakistan. Roger Bacon wrote long letters to the British Indian government in New Delhi that the Gilgit Agency should be directly transferred to Pakistan, and not given back to the Maharaja. After the Gilgit coup, he went back to Gilgit in January 1948 to organise the Gilgit Scouts and make them into fighting force, which than invaded Baltistan, Kargil and Ladakh. See the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 page.

What happened to Mainprice in all these developments is not known. Did he also start working for Pakistan and decide to work under cover? He 'vacationed' in Kashmir Valley for 3 months in summer 1948, during which he wrote this piece. Then he got expelled by the Sheikh Abdullah government, and went on to become a Deputy Secretary in Pakistan government (which represents a huge promotion!). Or, may be he was already working for Pakistan government when he had his 'vacation'. The Pakistan government then used his piece as evidence in the United Nations to justify the tribal invasion, painting it as a natural outrage of Pakistani Muslims in reaction the massacres in Jammu. The entire case of Pakistan in the United Nations rested on this claim, and it is the key to the internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute. So, a lot is riding on this figure and this news report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Times guy 237,000 figure, clearly it includes the deaths as well as escapes. Just that the words he used while reporting it were somewhat sensationalizing and a bit misleading. Its true that Pakistan maintained that tribal raids did not start till 22nd of October until Jammu massacres. In fact, Jinnah Liaquat Ali Khan even wrote to Nehru on 30th of Oct asking to stop the riots in Jammu as it is becoming "impossible to prevent tribes" from entering the state because of the outrage due to Jammu riots. They claimed the same in UN, instead of being clear that they wanted Kashmir as it had a Muslim majority and so they sent the Pashthuns. However it is not their entire claim, they presented that the Muslim majority of the state is anti-Maharaja (which is true) and they willingly want to join Pakistan in the absence of pro-Indian Sheikh Abdullah and Indian forces (which is extremely debatable). One more thing, Sheikh Abdullah never spoke about Hari Singh and his troops' mischief or Jammu massacres in his whole UN speech, in spite of talking a great deal about the Pakistani tribal invasion and its atrocities. This also raises many serious questions. And I have a doubt, if this '237,000 piece' and other exaggerated figures of 2-300,000 causalities were so significantly used as a tool, how come no one has pointed out till date that this is huge propaganda? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs)

You shouldn't use sources published by Concept publishers etc. You haven't said how you figured what Pakistan said in the UN. Here is a more authoritative source [7] that gives a summary of Pakistan's case in the first sitting. On the basis of this statement, Pakistan succeeded in converting the "Kashmir question" into "India–Pakistan question", i.e., made it appear as if India and Pakistan were both at fault.

In fact, Pakistan apparently worked out a deal with Britain even before India went to the UN. It recalled its High Commissioner to Britain, Zafrullah Khan, and sent him to represent its case in the UN. The "deal" did this:

Noel-Baker, accompanied by the two generals, raeched New York hard on the heels of the Indian complaint lodged at the UN [on 1 January 1948]. Their first call was on Senator Austin on 8 January 1948. They told austin that a UN decision should be firmly and promptly made and that military policing would be required for a plebiscite, for which the Pakistani troops would be the most suitable beause peace in Kashmir had to guarantee the security of the Muslims there. 'The whole affiar, according to my visitors, started with the massacre of Muslims instigated by the Prince [Hari Singh]', wired Austin to US secretary of state on 8 January 1948.

Apparently, Noel-Baker's sources (I suppose the two "Englishmen") didn't bother informing him how "Pakistani troops" liquidated 20,000 Hindus in Mirpur. Enough said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Is that book - 'Modern History of Jammu and Kashmir: Ancient times to Shimla Agreement' - not reliable ??! -- User:Vamsee614|Vamsee614]] (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I generally don't trust publishers that don't copyright their books, CONCEPT being one of those. But, in this case, it is probably ok, because they are just reproducing primary source documents. (I first thought you were using it to evaluate the Pakistani case in the UN, and what you were saying seemed to contradict other more authoritative sources.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Several factors influenced the UN's twisted behaviour in the Kashmir issue. Read this content if you hadn't read before. — Vamsee614 (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Firearms

"'Under the Kashmir State law, Dogra Rajputs were allowed to bear arms, and nobody else was.' - can you tell me the source(s) which you got this from? I want to know by whom, when and why this law was introduced, and in what all places it was implemented. " - by the way, you forgot to reply to this. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs)

Here is the source

On 7th October [1940], the State Government enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Arms Act... precautionary measure which sought to control the possession of fire arms. The major communities in the State which possessed arms were the Muslims in Poonch and Mirpur, the Dogra Rajputs of the Jammu province, the Muslim Rajas and Jagirdars in the Kashmir province and the tribals inhabiting the Dardic dependencies around Gilgit.... The Act prohibited the possession of all fire arms in the State. The Dogra Rajputs were, however, saved from the operation of the Act.

The firearms laws in British India were no different from what they are in India now. Only hand guns allowed, with license. The police used lathis but could access the archaic .303 rifles under orders. In the tribal areas, the British had very little control and, in princely states, they tried to bring them in line with British India.

Quite ridiculously, the British sent back the demobilised Poonchi soldiers from the Second World War with their arms. (They didn't do so in Hyderabad, even though they were State troops. Nobody has so far explained why they treated Poonchis differently.) So, the Maharaja was left with the task of disarming them. But, after he did so, he had a cache of arms that he could redistribute. No other arms or ammunition went into Kashmir until the war started. Pakistan blockaded supplies starting in September and India couldn't send any arms supplies because General Roy Bucher obstructed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Hey mate, do you have any idea by now, why exactly were Poonchis left with their arms after WW2 by Britishers? I mean, that was crazy. As I look into multiple RS these days, it appears to me, that caused much chaos later after the agitations began in the region. Some sources also say that many arms were not handed over after Hari Singh's order in July and they were attacking State forces with them. Leaving 60,000 WW2 experienced soldiers in just two districts with their weapons is really such a terrible idea! I'm unable to understand how that took place, did this happen anywhere else? You said it didn't happen so with State troops in other princely states like Hyderabad, what about the soldiers from British provinces? Were they also left with the arms like that, or not in any other region, at all? Why I'm particularly asking about this now, is because I suspect some kind of conspiracy behind this goofup by someone (Britishers, or may be Poonchi Military officers themselves, or both), given Poonchis' problematic history with their king. — Vamsee614 (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The British wanted the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan, including Mountbatten. Mountbatten succumbed only because he respected his constitutional obligation to abide by his Cabinet's advice (in his own words, written to King George). The rest of them had no such compunctions. In fact, the Army commanders complained to London that Mountbatten lost his head. He was supporting India! (And, I believe the idea that he was supporting India is also a bit of a myth. He blocked India from sending troops to relieve the garrisons in Poonch and Mirpur. He would support India in clearing the Valley, but nothing more.)

And, note too, that the weapons the Poonchis had were World War II weapons, most likely Bren guns, enormously more deadly than the weapons of the State Forces.

Hyderabad's grievance was considerable. They sent their forces with weapons into the World War II. But the troops were sent back home without weapons. The Brits said that they would issue them new (presumably less deadly) weapons. But by then India was being governed by Congress, and Congress blocked the weapons. So, if I go by my theory, the Brits wanted Hyderabad to accede to India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

So if we go by your theory, why Brits left Poonchis and Mirpuris with their (Britain's) WW2 weapons is because they intended to create trouble for Hari Singh, since they wanted J&K to accede to India Pakistan, am I correct?

I have some small clarifications. Hyderabad State send its own forces with its own weapons to fight for Britain; i.e., Nizam's forces with Nizam's weapons, did I get it right? And lastly, why did Brits wanted Kashmir State to accede to India Pakistan? Is it because of its Muslim majority?

Sorry for troubling you with too many questions, thanks for bearing with me. :-) — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you misread my statement. The Brits wanted J&K to accede to Pakistan. Obvious because of Muslim majority. But the Brits also had a lot of strategic calculations, the great game, defending the "Commonwealth" etc. It is a long story, and it has been studied to death.

I don't know if they really thought the Poonchis with machine guns should give trouble to the Maharaja. They might have just assumed that Kashmir would join Pakistan and then all the Poonchis would get absorbed into the Pakistani military. Pakistan was supposed to become central to the Commonwealth, taking over all the defense roles of erstwhile British India. So the Brits wanted to strengthen Pakistan. India was going to be "morbidly independent" and of no particular use for the Commonwealth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah fine, thanks. And I didn't misread your statement, I was carelessly typing 'India' instead of 'Pakistan', its embarrassing how I did that two times. It was a laughable typing mistake. Anyways, thanks again! :-) — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Poonch rebellion

Wasn't the Poonch rebellion and its inappropriate way of suppressing by Hari Singh and his forces, the starting point and an important factor of the 1947 Jammu massacres? Vamsee614 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The Poonch rebellion turned into Pakistan's covert war. That covert war inflamed the Maharaja and his forces, leading them to take vengeance on pro-Pakistan Muslims. The attitude of Jammu Muslims would have also contributed to the Maharaja's reaction. The second incident occurred on 22 October when all Muslim members of the J&K Police in Jammu City were disarmed and ordered to go to Pakistan. I think this corrobrates Mahajan's testimony. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"That covert war inflamed the Maharaja and his forces, leading them to take vengeance on pro-Pakistan Muslims. The attitude of Jammu Muslims would have also contributed to the Maharaja's reaction."

Apparently, I think, these were the chain of events that led to the 'Hari Singh and his forces aided and abetted' massacres in Jammu. -- Vamsee614 (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but note that it is one thing to construct a "chain of events" among ourselves on talk pages, and quite another to put it in an article. To do the latter, you need reliable sources. At the moment, your best bet is to fill in the Jammu violence section. We can work on the background later, once we have enough sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"The reports came that the rebellion also spread to the adjoining Mirpur district where also ex-servicemen lived in large number. There were allegations that while quelling the disturbances atrocities were committed on the innocent people and several villages were set ablaze. The state administration refuted these allegations and claimed that the rebellion has been crushed, blaming the rebels for attacks on Hindus and Sikhs.

Jammu witnessed worst communal holocaust. All kinds of rumours were spread about the Muslims arming themselves and planning to attack Hindus to justify the communal carnage that took place later." — in Ved Bhasin's report

This is a reliable source that clearly links both the incidents. Also we included the Mirpur massacre in the article whose direct background is the Poonch rebellion and the first Kashmir war.

That aside, I would like you to suggest me on how to fill the Jammu violence section. We have the relevant content from Snedden's book and Ved Bhasin's report. I want to know which source fits good for this. — Vamsee614 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• Your second question is easier. You should always prefer scholarly sources to news reports. So Snedden's book is by far the superior source. But, as I have been saying, Snedden is also a biased source. So, more sources will be needed to decide where NPOV lies. If you have an instinct for deciding what is NPOV and what might be one-sided, please use it. So far, I see that your instinct has always been pointing the wrong way, i.e., you seem to prefer the more controversial and sensational to the more neutral content.
• To give you examples from the Ved Bhasin article above:

1. reports came that... Looks like Bhasin is citing reliable information.
2. there were allegations... "Allegations" obviously.
3. state administration refuted... Ok, there are two sides to the story.

So, just from this example, it is clearly apparent that the first sentence is likely to be NPOV, whereas the second and third are POVs. Read the WP:NPOV guidance thoroughly and understand everything that it says.

• You should also use the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict to check when things happened. A lot of the propaganda in these areas happens by mixing up the timelines. The propagandists invert the cause and effect, to justify the original events that caused the later events. You should also keep things consistent with the Kashmir conflict article and the initial portions of First Kashmir War, both of which I culled after reading dozens of sources and deciding what their consensus is. Keep in mind that Kashmir conflict is the second biggest conflict in the world, next only to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and approach it respectfully and with humulity. Lots of stuff happened, and we know only miniscule portions of it.
• The timeline, as I understand it, is: the first signs of trouble happened in Poonch in August. (It was more likely an "unrest" rather than a "rebellion" at this point.) It was "snuffed out" by the end of the month. A dozen people died. Apparently villages were also torched, even though there is some disagreement about it.
• September was quiet, but a lot of stuff happened behind the scenes. Akbar Khan and Sardar Ibrahim met, 4,000 rifles were arranged, Ibrahim organised militias, Pakistan blockaded supplies, and Khurshid Anwar was sent to the Frontier to incite the Pashtuns. On the Maharaja' side, he appointed Mahajan (a pro-India judge, with contacts in Congress), sent feelers to the Indian government and released Sheikh Abdullah from prison.
• In October, all the planning of September was put into effect. Border raids from Pakistan, reports of Pashtun mobilisation, the Poonch militias taking over the district (the "rebellion"), Maharaja's visit to the Jammu province, firing the Muslims from police force, and the massacres. The first massacre in the Jammu province was on 20 October. The tribes invaded on the night of 21 October. The two were pretty much simultaneous. There was no cause and effect between them. But both the sides seemed to have foreknowledge of what the other was going to do.
• I have a strong statement from Ian Copland saying that the Jammu massacres represented revenge for the Poonch rebellion. I can add that later. Ved Bhasin is not really connecting the two things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Likewise, the Kashmir government's pogrom against its Muslim subjects in Jammu was undertaken partly out of revenge for a formidable uprising in Poonch, a semi-autonomous jagir territory located in the state's southwest, abutting the district of Rawalpindi." — is this the statement you were mentioning about? − Vamsee614 (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It has to be attributed to Copland of course. Unfortunately, Copland has missed the Pakistan connection. In my view, the vengeance on Jammu Muslims was taken because the State officials saw them as collaborators of Pakistan, similar to Poonchi Muslims, but unlike Kashmiri Muslims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Its obvious. We can add it if we want, that vengeance was taken because State officials saw Jammu Muslims as collaborators of Pakistan, similar to Poonch Muslims. No big deal. — Vamsee614 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Guns

@Kautilya3: Hey bro! "In July 1947, the ‘spooked’ Maharaja’s government ‘encouraged’ military-capable Poonchis and Mirpuris to disarm, including those ‘on leave with arms and ammunition’ from the Pakistan Army. These Muslims then became ‘alarmed’ when the J&K Police, with whom they had deposited their arms, redistributed these to Sikhs and Hindus for self-defence." (from Snedden's book) - why is this line problematic? — Vamsee614 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Because, as I have told you many times already, Snedden is a biased source. All his sources are either Pakistan government or Muslim Conference sources. Why do you think he has so many quote marks in his text?

Apparently nobody in Azad Kashmir told him about the Jammu & Kashmir Arms Act. These Muslims might think that running around with guns is their birthright. We, in civilized world, don't think so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Haha. But bro, it was not just about disarming people, no? The collected arms were redistributed specifically to Hindu and Sikh civilians. As I see, it is certainly a matter of fear of security.

"In the Spring of 1947, the Poonchis had mounted a 'no-tax' campaign.

Maharaja responded by strengthening his garrisons in Poonch with Sikhs and Hindus. In July he ordered all Muslims in the district to hand over their weapons to the authorities. But, as communal tension spread, the Muslims were angered when the same weapons appeared in the hands of Hindus and Sikhs. They therefore sought fresh weapons from the tribes of the North-West Frontier who were well known for their manufacture of arms."

See, its observed in this source also. — Vamsee614 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you checked who Schofield's source is? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't see that he cited any source for this! But he's also a published source, right? And sources apart, what is your doubt? Do you say that the 'redistribution of arms to Hindus and Sikhs' might be a lie? — Vamsee614 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Victoria Schofield is a "she". The source is Sardar Ibrahim again. Citation 64 on page 252.

What is my doubt? Not a doubt, but standard due diligence. Sardar Ibrahim was the Chief Rebel. And rebels always make up facts to justify their actions. We need independent corroboration. Ibrarhim is not telling us which Hindus and Sikhs these arms were given to. Locan ones? Or, refugees? He is also not telling us how many were given out. If 60,000 guns were collected but 10 were given out to prominent Hindus/Sikhs, that would satisfy his description, but the import of that would be vastly less than what is made out. Finally, we haven't heard anything about what the Hindus/Sikhs did with these arms. If the Maharaja's plan was to create a communal holocaust, that hasn't happened (in Poonch & Mirpur. Jammu is another story). So, the only import of this 'guns' affair is to justify the rebellion. Snedden and Schofield want to justify it.

There is nothing about guns from Henry Lawrence Scott. He was questioned by the British High Commission in India, and possibly by the India Office/Commonwealth Relations Office back in London. The records are there. And, responsible scholars have looked them up. Snedden and Schofield haven't. They don't fit my image of WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for calling Victoria Schofield a 'he' and for not properly looking up for the citation. I overlooked both of them. Anyways what you said sounds justifying. But even if you provide a considerable amount of guns to 10% of the population, you cannot possibly create a communal holoucast. That too against the Poonch Muslims in that stage. What all you said is reasonably good, but still there's a bit of uncertainty left in it. — Vamsee614 (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Found this in Sardar Ibrahim's book:

They distributed these arms to local non-Muslims and to Sikhs, originally from Hazara, who moved during the summer into the Bagh area and Poonch itself, after being trained and organised in Muzaffarabad.

The Sikhs were evidently refugees (who escaped from some of the worst partition riots on the Pakistani side), but he also includes "local non-Muslims". No numbers given. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Haha. What to do bro? We cannot write what we believe. We are supposed to inform all versions. — Vamsee614 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Mahajan

• 14 October: The activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Akalis mount attacks on villages of the Jammu district, killing Muslims and setting houses on fire. (from the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict article) — By the way see this, I wonder what Mahajan's Muslim police chief was doing! — Vamsee614 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I wonder who put it there! [8]. What was the Muslim police chief doing? I will have to ask him :-) But it would be more interesting if you found evidence of police complicity before the Maharaja's visit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Arey why do you take it personal bro? I was not pointing you. I was only pointing to Mahajan and his 'clever' and evasive words trying to make the readers believe what he wants them to believe. He was one of the in-charges of the situation in Jammu when these terrible things were taking place, and being the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, what does he want to say about his responsibility as an administrator? He simply tries to say it was "not humanly possible" to prevent all those happenings as "men had become insane." But at the same time he gives his 'valuable' information like, "The loss of property of Hindus and Sikhs is several times that of Muslims." Its just that I was so disappointed to know that such a highly respectable personality acted out of prejudice. Sorry if you were offended by my previous message. —— Vamsee614 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't take anything personally. I have even put a smiley! But you are taking things personally with Mahajan. I never thought of him as a 'clever' guy, but just a regular Arya Samaji with inherent biases against Muslims. But he had also seen in Lahore the ethnic cleansing of the other side. So, don't be too judgmental on him.

References

Propaganda

On the other hand, I am not sure why you keep ignoring the incessant propaganda about the Jammu massacres, starting from Horace Alexander (a Gandhian?) in 1948 down to Illyas Chattha (a Southampton PhD) till this day? How exactly did Chattha get his PhD without reading Ian Copland's book? This doesn't anger you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

another long post

haha! I thought that smiley was sarcastic, my bad. And nothing like that bro, I don't ignore. I do acknowledge the propaganda, you don't see it. Actually I'm angrier with Chattha than you. His substandard thesis was the first source that I had access to and it initially made me think that over 200,000 people died and another 300,000+ people migrated. I expected that a Southampton PhD required a better and more research, at least than a Wikipedia article. I was so betrayed until I read Snedden's book and other sources, and realised the clear picture later because of you (but when you sent me the circa 1947 article, I couldn't even read some parts of those. See the Udhampur district violence section, did that really happen, at all?). However I was still troubled with the Jammu massacres. Here I have to say I differ with you a bit. They were not regular partition riots. Administration's involvement made them worse, more or less. I will have to admit that I'm very much anti Hari Singh. It somewhat shaped my mindset in this issue. In my opinion, he was one of the chief causes for the origins of the Kashmir Conflict. I hate him for acceding to India. He should have accepted that he has no place in decision making anymore, given the majority of his subjects did not support him, and had different aspirations - none of them in agreement with his plans to be permanently independent under his rule (Poonch, Mirpur, rest of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan were with Pakistan and were completely against him, valley was with National Conference and might have wanted to be independent but definitely not with his presence in the administration, only today's Indian Jammu might have had his support partially but probably didn't want to be an independent Dogra state in the long run). He could have negotiated with the governments, took his benefits, and left the decision in some way to the people then itself. In that case, neither Indians nor Pakistanis would have thought today that Kashmir is their inherited property. He had been siding with India, perhaps due to his Hindu background, and when he saw that he couldn't remain independent, he gave the signals of accession to India, and proceeded accordingly. This had political deep consequences. You might have known all this. And what I don't understand in this whole business is what was the political need for him aid and carry out the Jammu riots? What was he trying to achieve? Was it only vendetta, or was there some other motive also? Anyway, also mind you, all propaganda is not Pakistan propaganda. Snedden and Schofield were working with Pakistani sources and might have got somewhat sympathized with Muslims and I think that made them biased. They are not political propagandists of Pakistan's cause. Snedden also talks about Mirpur massacres and other side of the partition violence. And unlike other propagandists, he doesn't buy the inflated figures. In an interview, he said - "perhaps 100,000 were killed, certainly 20,000 or 30,000 maybe is a more reliable figure". Chattha's was inadequate research. And Horace Alexander, this is what he wrote in his The Spectator article - "But the horror which that raid, almost certainly assisted by certain official elements in Pakistan, has rightly caused, must not make us forget that, weeks earlier, the Hindus and Sikhs of the Jammu area, led largely by refugees, but, once again, apparently with at least the tacit consent of State authority, had driven many thousands of their Muslim neighbours from their homes, and some two hundred thousand are, as Mr. Gandhi with his usual courageous candour has admitted, not accounted for." I don't think he meant 200,000 died. He probably was telling that the loss of Muslims was about 200,000, but was sounding a bit sensational just like the Times guy. Sadly many sources including Noorani and Saeed Naqvi attributed that number to the killings. The same way Shubh Mathur misinterpreted Anuradha Bhasin's "About 200,000 just disappeared, remaining untraceable, having presumably been butchered, or died from epidemics or exposure. The rest fled destitute to West Punjab." Times guy's 237, 000 has a similar story. Everybody has gone with the flow. I see irresponsibility in all of this, not mere Pakistani inclination or sponsorship. I'm aware that Pakistan also does this propaganda and that its representative raised the Times article in UN. They tried to falsely push that their raids happened because of Hari Singh's violence in Poonch and Jammu. But I don't think, as you said, this is the sole basis for the internationalization of dispute. Two nations, India and Pakistan, had already fought a war on Kashmir officially before going to UN. It was already an international dispute. And the thing is, despite the incessant propaganda, nobody in India knows about Jammu massacres at all. Hardly people are aware that in 1947, the ruler of J&K killed Muslims in Jammu. I'm sure 95% don't know. Whenever Kashmir and its army excess is brought into picture, people in India immediately bring the much sensational Kashmiri Pandits exodus and killings as a trump card, in a way to justify India's force and atrocities in the valley. Also in Hyderabad, where I come from, when our pre-independence history's discussed, people talk a great deal about well known Razakars and their atrocities. But not even 1% of them know that during and after the annexation of the state, Hindu extremists here with the help of Indian army, killed at the very least, 27,000 Muslims, that too according to an official report. I'm not saying Kashmiri pandits exodus' and Razakars violence are insignificant issues. My point is - all this is painting, only a single community as the provoker and participant of violence in political conflicts, which is so ridiculous and dangerous. And I stand against it. Regarding Mahajan, my only problem is that he became the Chief justice of India. Nothing else. ——— Vamsee614 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the circa. 1947 was a pretty hard article to read. But I have no basis to think that this kind of savagery was limited to Jammu. All over the subcontinent, the partition massacres were gruesome. They were all generated by mutual hatred and distrust, which are still present and in fact quite close to the centres of power, both in India and Pakistan. We have Gandhi and Nehru to thank for the sanity that prevails, but it is a tenuous sanity, which can break at any time. There is an "ongoing partition", which will never end. In fact, we witness it here on Wikipedia every other day. So, who are you going to get angry with?

I agree that Snedden and Schofield are merely buying into the propaganda stories, not generating their own. But that is bad enough. They are giving it their stamp of approval, which makes more people believe them. But, if Snedden said "20,000 or 30,000", we should put it in the article. I think that is the correct figure.

And, that means that even the 70,000 figure invented by the two Englishmen is wrong. In fact, I figured out why it is wrong a few days ago. Their calculations are based on how many people were assembled for a 'massacre' and how many survived. But they have no idea how many got away and went to Pakistan.

All the partition riots were the same. They were all calculated savageries meant to drive away the minority population. Copland says as much, something like "you don't have to kill all of them. You kill a few and the rest will go away."

But, the Mirpur massacre was different. It was ritual killing, by small numbers everyday, as if it was a duty to kill. They were soldiers, following orders. Not goons, driven by passions. I hope you see the meaning of that.

As for Hyderabad, please remember that the massacres happened in Marathwada, not Hyderabad. I don't see why you expect the Hyderabadis to remember them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bro, massacres took place in Telangana also, along with Marathwada. By Hyderabad, I meant the state of Telangana. I know violence was less in this region, Sundar Lal Committee in its report surveyed a few villages in Nalgonda and Medak districts of Telangana, and estimated the deaths there to be at least 2,000. And I expect them to remember this because they remember the Razakars very well. Both Razakars' violence and later the backlash during and after Operation Polo occurred almost in the same regions, both happened under the same state. You should consume both sides of the story. However I said this as an analogy, actually the communal divide in our Telangana today is very low.

Regarding Mirpur massacre, my knowledge is very little. I didn't even investigate the figures and I found very few sources to work with. So I cannot comment. As you are saying it was mere soldiers following orders, I don't even properly know who operated them. If big guys like Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan were involved beyond reasonable doubt (I didn't come across even one source that told about Sardar Ibrahim's complicity), I'd say I'll be very much shocked and displeased.

And yeah, I also thought to add the Snedden's comment in the article. But I hesitated as it was from an interview and not from the book. Also his words seemed too vague in that commentary. Anyhow I'm not sure how you are validating any figure saying its correct, after all the research. Given our rough estimates only regarding loss of people, the figures of different refugee estimates, and also no reliable and accurate estimates regarding deaths, we can only have range. I don't think we can conclude that any figure between 25,000 - 100,000 is correct.

I don't agree that what our founding fathers like Gandhi and Nehru have given us, is a tenuous sanity. Except for a few disasters like Babri demolition and 1984 anti-Sikh massacres, I think India did fine. At least okay. Its just that there's majoritarian rule prevailing for now, it appears that there's unending divide. As Nehru has said, “Communalism of the majority is far more dangerous than the communalism of the minority. When the minority communities are communal, you can see that and understand it. But the communalism of the majority community is apt to be taken for nationalism.” — Vamsee614 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a true entrenchment of sanity would have occurred only if (i) RSS and HM had been banned and burried, (ii) all political parties had been required to be secular with no connections to communal/religious organisations allowed, (iii) all religious schools had been prohibited, (iv) the state had been genuinely secular with no connections to religious places and no sops to religious communities, and (v) genuine road map had been created for a common secular civil law. Without these, the communalists only beat a tactical retreat, and now they are back with full force. Nehru's own daughter turned out to be a rabid communalist, what to speak of the others? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You are right, Nehru was too liberal in curbing the communalism and take such bold steps. But Nehru envisioned a secular, and also a free & democratic India that tolerates all kinds of expressions and opinions. However we cannot completely stop communal forces in India permanently. They will appear again in one or the other way. We need to keep our institutions strong enough to counter their activities whenever necessary. Uniform Civil Code was Nehru's dream. He was one of the few people who had this vision. He worked a lot for it. Only that, he later felt the nation was not yet ready for such a change. Indira is a mystery to me. I don't understand how her personality had shaped like that, despite being and interacting with the likes of Gandhi and Nehru. Nehru didn't encourage her to participate in politics. She was a power monger, and from the beginning she wanted to assert without any meaningful purpose, that she has an individual identity that is independent of her father. Nehru was much worried with her behaviour, he even was in disagreement with her when she became Congress president saying it was undesirable, undemocratic and dynastic. He refused her a cabinet position and she had no place in parliament till Nehru died. May be Nehru's softness made him helpless to further limit his daughter. In some ways, it costed India a lot. —— Vamsee614 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, thanks for digging up the Horace Alexander article. I am glad to see that he doesn't say what people claim he did. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Gandhians are rarely wrong. :-P — Vamsee614 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Bro, "According to Christopher Snedden, these Jammu Muslims (referring to refugees of Jammu massacres) joined the uprising in Poonch and the western districts, and instigated the formation of the Azad Kashmir government." - this line is present in the 'Partition and invasion' section of Kashmir conflict article citing Snedden's book. Look into that, is it fine? — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to check later. I recall reading the claim in the book, and not being satisfied with his evidence. I also think he is the only source that mentions this. So we have to be cautious about it. I also worry about the vague nature of the claim: how many Jammu Muslims participated? And, who? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what. Its there in the book, I too read it. But those Jammu Muslim refugees (of massacres) he claims must have amounted to very few numbers who, most probably, contributed too little for the instigation of the rebellion, that too joining in the very ending phase of it. The claim greatly ignores the timelines of both incidents. I'm also not convinced about the line, that's why I showed it to you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Good God! You are pointing out dubious statements in my own writing! I think I can declare you to have graduated from your training. :-)

It is not easy to check the Snedden's book any more because Google Books removed the content. But it is the Pakistani/Azad Kashmiri version of the events, which Snedden endorses. I think it is a lot easier to establish that the arrival of Jammu Muslims in West Pakistan inflamed the Muslims there, who then joined the uprising. Chattha has more details about it. That matches the timeline as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, thank you! I didn't know it was your writing though. — Vamsee614 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bro, I think Chattha (pg 185, 186) was talking about the West Pakistan Muslims who joined the First Kashmir War, not the Poonch uprising! — Vamsee614 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The Maharaja

I think that, to understand what was going in the Maharaja's head, we have to read Copland's work, who has studied all the princely states of India. All the princely rulers were more or less fine until the 1930s. In fact, the communal violence in the states was far and far less compared to British India. But, until that point, all the people of the states thought of themselves as 'subjects', and accepted the establishment. The rulers responded with benevolence. By the 1930s, the privileged and the industrious people started getting educated, travelling to British India, watching the development of democracy there, and started demanding rights. We know that both Kashmir and Hyderabad had uprisings in the 1930s, and Copland says it was the same everywhere. From this point on, there was an uneasy truce between the rulers and their minority subjects. By 1947, they had developed significant distrust of their minorities, and nurtured the communal forces of their own community. Again, Kashmir and Hyderabad are mirror images of each other.

What is different about Kashmir is that it was next to Punjab, which was long militarised (a 'garrison state') and becoming the centre of Pakistan. From the mid-1946, the Muslim League became the force in Punjab, inciting its Muslims against Hindus/Sikhs, and the Hindus/Sikhs started getting militarised as well. The arrival of Hindu/Sikh refugees from Punjab and NWFP and the pressures from the militant Hindus/Sikhs, turned the Maharaja into a communal force. The firing of Ram Chandra Kak as the prime minister at the beginning of August symbolises this transformation. (See that page.) Until that point, the Maharaja would have preferred to join Pakistan rather than India, because the Muslim League was promising him full power whereas the Congress wanted him to devolve power to the people. Henry Lawrence Scott talks about this, and talks about the Maharaja coming under the influence of a coterie (which included the Maharani, her brother, RL Batra - the deputy prime minister, and a Hindu swami). The more the propaganda and violence in West Pakistan, the more 'Hindu' he became. That is how Kashmir ended up in this situation.

Copland tells us that it was the same everywhere. The Hindu rulers came under the influence of the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha, and the Muslim rulers (Junagadh, Hyderabad and Bhopal) came under the influence of the Muslim League, the Kaksars, the Ahrars and so on. We know about Kashmir because it has been studied to death but Copland has studied all the states. In the broader perspective, Kashmir was no different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

True, I agree. — Vamsee614 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

But I don't think he would have preferred joining Pakistan though Muslim League promised him full power. In the long run, he would have had no place in Pakistan if once he accedes. Even his 'subjects' wouldn't have wanted him anymore as their king, after seeing the governments in other regions. And in the conditions after partition, there is a sound possibility that he might face terrible consequences after being overthrown. He and his family might lose their rights, and might even be exiled. Or even worse. In India, his son later enjoyed quite exceptional treatment. He was even awarded Padma Vibhushan (I don't know why). — Vamsee614 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Kak's leanings

• @Kautilya3: Hey mate. Regarding the edit in First Kashmir War page, I googled as you suggested, but did not find any meaningful evidence that said Kak favoured acceding to Pakistan. There are some allegations that he was secretly supporting Pakistan, but not from reliable sources, and also the allegations I saw, didn't appear so faithful to me. It is a well known fact that Kak was very much against INC and acceding to India, but that doesn't mean he is pro Pakistan. There is reasonable evidence that suggests he wanted Hari Singh to keep Kashmir independent. Apart from Scott's clear and several testimonies in several ways that Kak greatly favoured independence, Ankit independently also observes the same in an exclusive article on Kak. Noorani tells the same. Most importantly, eminent historian Ram Chandra Guha also observes very much the same in his famous book. I think we should stick to these neutral observations. — Vamsee614 (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• His position, as documented in the note (found in Powell papers), says that acceding to Pakistan was the right thing for Kashmir, but since the Maharaja was unwilling to do so, remaining independent was his next best option. This doesn't make him "pro-Independence".
• But this is just one note. Privately, he had been advising the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan in a hundred different ways. He was also giving truck to pro-Pakistan elements and Pakistani infiltrators inside the state. The Tribune said, during his regime, Jinnah caps were visible everywhere. At the same time, the National Conference was being suppressed. And, Congress was being blocked, including the arrest of Nehru.
• You have to remember that India and Pakistan weren't a simple binary. India, i.e., Congress, was allied with States people's movements since the 1930s. This was so even when there was a single party in Kashmir, which was called Muslim Conference, and there was nothing called "partition" on the horizon. So blocking Congress was cutting an umbilical chord, which also counts as "pro-Pakistan" in my book.
• Pakistan was supporting the continuation of the monarchy, whereas India was demanding devolution of power to the people's movements. If the monarchy continued, Kak could maintain his own position intact whereas devolution would mean reduction of his own powers including eventual termination. So Kak wasn't a disinterested party here.
• Finally, Henry Scott's own views were highly influenced by Kak. Note what says of the Quit Kashmir movement. It wasn't a "movement", or an "agitation" or even a "revolt". It was an attempted "coup". You can be sure that was Kak's view as well.
• When the Maharaja dismissed him in August, in the most humiliating way, he didn't do so because Kak was advocating "independence". He did so because he was buttressing Pakistan, which, the Maharaja could see, was causing immense destruction of Hindus and Sikhs.
• You have to remember, now and always, that India wasn't demanding Kashmir's accession, even though Nehru felt that it would be good if Kashmir acceded so that India's secular credentials would be reinforced. Even without any accession, India would have been perfectly content with a friendly Kashmir governed by National Conference. So, Kak's animosity towards Congress wasn't because he cared a great deal for Kashmir's Muslims. It was simply because he wanted to retain the status quo, including his own position in it. So maintaining status quo itself amounted to leaning towards Pakistan. It was only with Pakistan's help that he could continue suppressing National Conference.

I suppose that is enough argumentation. See Snedden's discussion of it on page 20, even though it isn't greatly enlightened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is another view:

The Maharaja of Kashmir,..., began to work on the British Resident's perception that the state could not remain independent or alternatively join Pakistan. Prime Minister R. C. Kak, Army Chief Brigadier Scott and Police Chief Powell did influence Maharaja Hari Singh for not taking a decision on the accession issue well in time before the partition.

So, it looks like the so-called "Maharaja's indecision" was in fact Kak's doing. Maharani had a meeting with Mahajan in Lahore in May 1947, asking him to come in as the prime minister. So the Maharaja seems to have recognised already that Kak wasn't working out for him. In June, the Maharaja opened a channel of communication to Sardar Patel, who started advising him to accede to India. (Now people like Noorani can read a lot into this, but what I see is that the relations between the Maharaja and Congress were broken at that time. Maharaja believed that he didn't have the option of acceding to India because Congress was inimical to him. Patel was trying to reassure him that it wasn't so, and Congress didn't have any hard feelings etc. But Patel was quite firm that the Maharaja had to release Sheikh Abdullah.) So, it was the triumvirate that didn't let it happen, and the Maharaja probably felt helpless without a sympathetic prime minister to support it.

We might wonder what would have happened if the Maharaja acceded to India before 15 August. The triumvirate believed that the State's Muslims as well as the surrounding regions would have gone up in arms. May be so. But, India would have asked for an immediate installation of Sheikh Abdullah in the government, and it would have been up to him to figure out how to control it. The Muslim League would have been intensely unhappy but the mischief they could cause would have been limited because the British were still in power. A referendum would have been promised, and held with the British overseeing it (like in NWFP). So, things could have been amicably settled despite some tensions. Kak blocked all this from happening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. I understand that Scott was Kak's friend, and was under his influence. But we are in serious lack of WP:RS and WP:HISTRS here. Without them, we will be seen as engaging in WP:OR. You know it better than I do. When standard sources like Guha are presenting that Kak denied Mountbatten's indirect advice to accede to Pakistan and defiantly said that the state will remain independent, we must have solid scholarly source(s) that back our position that he is particularly pro-Pakistan. Because even the sources cited at the content in the article there do not tell in any way that Kak was pro-Pakistan. So I think its best to go with "anti-India" for an NPOV, what do you say to that? — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That is somewhat a major detail in the story. So I'm concerned. — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Snedden good enough? Here is a more explicit statement [9]. I am also not sure why this is a big deal. Nobody sheds any tears for Kak. He was boorish, autocratic, totally undiplomatic, and politically naive. Who cares what he was? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Because he was the PM of Kashmir during independence, and was consequential. You yourself stated in this very thread that Kak, in one way, had blocked an amicable settlement from taking place then itself (in that case, there wouldn't have been an existing conflict today in the first place, and we wouldn't be discussing about it). And also, his dismissal is a considerable turn in the events. It moved things. So when the question comes why he was dismissed, knowing his leanings do become important. Anyway now that there is Snedden's observation for us (I didn't see that before), there is no problem anymore. Cheers! — Vamsee614 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't dismissed for advocating independence. You can bet your life on that! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks ! — Vamsee614 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Human Rights Abuses in J&K

I think we need to work a bit on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and find more RS to refine the content, including in the main article, with more than one/two scholarly citations. There's somewhat a growing concern on the present content in the article regarding this subject these days. — Vamsee614 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

why this template isnt good?

pesudoscientific templates????????????? LouisAragon say : ridiculous edits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this act and it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_21#Template:Aryanic_peoples_diaspora only have one mean :::::::::: admin monopoly and selfish. Wikipedia will be destroyed by this procedure. Everything is unfair and vague

i dont know what i say! afd for a report with unregisted user! improve articles isnt ridiculous edits. you should be polite. @LouisAragon exactly where is it ridiculous ?