Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:51, 13 February 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Jammu and Kashmir This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir. Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force

A lot of the discussion about disputes and problems with the article can be found at Talk:Kashmir.

References Cited

It'd be good to have a refrence citing the obervation that King Hari Singh played india off against pakistan.

Ranjitointernational 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest there is an unacceptable lack of references extending throughout the entire article; I would urge people interested in this article (and it seems like there are many) to try and find some proof for some of the claims made and if unable to, to edit areas of the article to compensate for the lack of references.

AetherSage (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) AetherSage

Nonsensical passage

Does anyone care to clean up this passage? It makes no sense to me. Acsenray 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For India Kashmir has been more then a discomfiture then a feat. In 1947 30% of Kashmir was omitted to Pakistan and in 1962 30% of it was gone to China. On both those occasion’s Indian self-assurance was marred. India has not been able to convalesce those losses to date.

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

4000 or 3000 Pakistani soldiers killed

I don't think Nawaz Sharif or Pakistan People's Party are reliable sources because they belong to the opposition side who are willing to say anything to malign the current government in Parliment. We need solid neutral proof on the number of soldiers killed. Also, the Indian Army is always ready to name local insurgents as Pakistanis when it comes to counting the enemy dead in order to boost their own morale. Advil 01:38, 27 July 2006

Can you find any "independent observers" saying 4000 Pak soldiers have died, Idleguy? Advil 02:40, 27 July 2006

Please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources (found in the main article Kargil War). If you disagree with the stats provided then this isn't the place to vent your feelings since blanking in Misplaced Pages isn't welcome. Independent observers themselves tend to give high importance to the figures provided by people who were/are in power since a person somewhere in the west would have no clue compared to the one who was closer to the conflict. If anything Pakistan hasn't officially conducted a commission nor has it spelt out the casualties in Kargil; the only mention seems to be a boast by Musharaf that the Pakistan Army casualties were lower, however he doesn't give the exact numbers. Infact one of the "mujahideen" groups themselves had claimed on their website (during the conflict) that thousands had "martyred" in the icy peaks. That's only the jihadis mind you, not the NLI, SSG or Pak Army. I think it's time to accept history for what it was, instead of being in denial of the facts in this day and age. --Idleguy 07:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disguising assumptions as facts by showing unreliable sources such as statements from Mr. Sharif or the PPP. Mr. Sharif now states that he was not given any briefing about the Kargil war on July 14, 2006 which is hard to believe. Lt-Gen Khawaja Ziauddin was the head of the ISI who reported directly to the prime minister. If Sharif was not briefed, as he so claims, it is strange that the ISI gave no information about the skirmish to him. If the claim of Mr Sharif is true, then the question arises why instead of sacking Lt-Gen Ziauddin for this intelligence failure, Mr Sharif proceeded to appoint him as army chief when he decided to replace Gen Musharraf. It’s about time you people accept the fact that Sharif is an unreliable source when it comes to the 1999 skirmish. Advil 03:28, 27 July 2006

Just because Mr Sharif gives a figure that seems to bother a few Pakistanis, he is termed as unreliable. Even when the PPP attests to that and quotes a lower figure, they too are branded as unacceptable. How convenient! Elected representatives' statements are rubbished, yet, a dictator's words are taken at face value - not that Gen Musharaf has even given a casualty figure - thus making a mockery of sources.

You must remember one thing, Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability which states boldly "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." If you feel that Sharif is lying, that is different but his statement is a verifiable one and that's all that matters. Also I'm making the last revert and any more reverts by you will come under WP:3RR given that your edits of blanking selective sections seem to constitute a type of vandalism --Idleguy 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how Indians are willing to accept these numbers as concrete facts to boost their low morale. Mr. Sharif's political career depends on defying and creating animosity against the current government. Advil 11:00, 27 July 2006

Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:42, 27 July 2006

OK. I have removed the whole casualty thing since it now requires a full paragraph. Instead the main article on the war has the casualty figures explained in detail. The focus of this article is the history and since none of the other wars discuss the casualty figures anyway I've removed this one too since it is needlessly getting larger just for one aspect. Hope you will understand. Tx Idleguy 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:52, 27 July 2006

These sources are already there with the casualty figures in the Kargil War article. No one is deleting that, infact I was the one who put it there in the first place. I'm saying it'll keep on getting longer and longer just to have a redundant casualty section in an article about the history of the Kashmir conflict. Take a look at the other wars covered here and you'll find they don't talk about the casualties. Including casualties involves a controversy - and we have enough of that here already in this article, so please try to understand and don't lose the focus of the article. Infact the link you provided here will be useful in the Kargil War about the equipment used by Pakistan. --Idleguy 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Indian POV

The "Indian view" and "Pakistani view" sections are horribly pov in favor of india. All the Indian points are given with no counter arguments, while the Pakistani points all have Indian counter arguments in them. It not fair.

I would change it myself, but I don't want to mess up the citations. 68.111.239.16 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone with no vested interests here (I just came here to learn more about the dispute), I agree completely. There is a definite non-neutral pov problem that pervades this entire article. (Furthermore, the "Indian view" is so poorly written as to actually hurt the case it is trying to make!) But I'm not going to change this either, because, as I said, I really don't know enough. 69.195.27.62 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The following passage appears in the Kashmir article. These important issues, if they are true, or even if they are asserted but disputed, should be mentioned in the present article:

In 1948, the Maharaja reportedly signed accesion to India, much to the dismay of Pakistan. Historians have disputed whether the Maharaja actually signed the accession treaty before Indian troops entered Kashmir. Furthermore, the Indian government has never produced an original copy of this accession treaty and thus its validity and legality is disputed.--StN 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should be reworded to "Pakistan has disputed whether the Maharaja actually signed the accession treaty", not "historians" which is misleading. It's not an easy thing to forge the signature of a governor general of Britain's largest colony, and get away with such a high profile fake instrument done on behalf of the Queen's powers. I'm reproducing a copy of the treaty here and elsewhere to settle this claim by "historians" and an article titled Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) already exists where external links show the original document hosted on a Govt. of India website. --Idleguy 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon. vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir not part of Pak - Pak Foreign Office

1. “For the past 60 years, we have never claimed Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan. What we have said is that Kashmiris should be able to decide their future and we hope that they would opt for Pakistan,” Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam told a weekly news briefing here.

2. When Ms Aslam was reminded that the slogan of the Pakistani nation for past 60 years had been: ‘Kashmir banay ga Pakistan’ her response was: “That is a slogan of Kashmiris not Pakistan.”

3. Asserting that Pakistan had never claimed that Azad Kashmir was part of Pakistan, the Spokesperson said: “Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. If we were claiming it as integral part of Pakistan then we would have had a governor and a chief minister there.” The spokesperson urged the reporters to study Pakistan’s historical position on Kashmir.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top3.htm

It's time to clean up all articles with the assertion that Pak claims Kashmir. Evidently it does not and never has all these decades. So much for every expert's well-researched understanding on matters Kashmir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/6.htm and http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/4.htm before claiming Pakistan does not control AK - obviously it cannot openly claim a disputed territory like Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan, then it would not be able to point fingers at India for doing so - but it treats it as such. --- Zebee 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of substance in the Pak POV

1. Kindly put up references and citations about Pak's official viewpoint on Kashmir.

2. Pak Forein Office has officially claimed that it has never said that Kashmir belongs to Pak.

3. References in books and newsreports about the happenings in Sep-mid Oct 1947 clearly suggest that Pak tribals were encouraged to attack Kashmir and that arms were distributed for the expedition in the Pathan tribal areas.. The Pathan tribals used as a proxy by the Pak plitical establishment, attacking and invading Kashmir is a fact. The Indian troops landing in choppers into Srinagar only on Oct 27,1947 is also a fact. Just because the Pak troops themselves were involved late by Pak, doesn't mean that Pak didn't officially invade.This is the pivot of the Pak POV.

4. There's no place for rumors to be put up as fact or even a POV when it is not adequately backed up. Anybody can spin a yarn with the 1947 setting and claim it to be a theory. That's exactly what the Pak POV suggests.

5. Pak incidentally has never disputed the Accession Document for Kashmir in the UN. I would ask for the Pak official position on Kashmir at the UN to be made available here as citation and reference. Incidentally the Indian official position at the UN vide Krishna Menon's marathon speech is available.

6. If references/citations are not availabe, just delete the trash and stick to proven facts.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Two points:

• Misplaced Pages is not a collection of viewpoints but a NPOV collection of facts from reliable sources.
• I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

7. I am not sure that the Pakistani viewpoint consists of the statement, "India's pretence to be a secular state is a deceit. In India, everything is dominated by the Hindus and the Muslims suffer persecution and repression." This seems like an unverifiable opinion and is probably vandalism. It should be deleted. --71.103.179.28 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”

"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan

Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai

By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi

A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore

Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa

Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Developments section is biased

. == This section is incredibly biased towards Indian POV ==

1. First of all, I havent been able to find Kofi Anan saying that the UN resolution is irrelevant. He only said it can not be enforced in the current situation. And suggested that Lahore Declaration had a better chance of solving the problem. Not to mention that the reference for that "quote" is an article from an indian newspaper! which in itself doesnt literally quote the UNGS!!

2. Secondly, the statement "Also contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. This was confirmed in a 2002 survey by MORI where around 61% of the respondents said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen, with only 6% preferring Pakistan instead. The rest were undecided or wished to become independent. " is also completely wrong. The referenced survey asked Kashimiris many different questions and one of them asked which one of Pakistan or India will evenutally leave them better of politically and economically. This in no way suggests that they support joining India. e.g. the same survey also says

"Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy."

and

"An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support - 91% - for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests."

which clearly suggests they lean towards an undivided independent Kashmir.

3. Continuing with the point above, its never quoted anywhere that there is a big distinction between jammu, laddakh and rest of the kashmir. Jammu is an hindu majority region, laddakh is 50% and 49% buddhist and muslim respectively, and the rest of the kashmir is overwhelmingly muslim. So there is bound to be a significant difference in opinion between the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.3.36 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

== Bias == Intentional Bent reasoning towards Indian POV

This articles Reasons behind the dispute section is extremely biased. For every Pakistani view their is a counter argument, but this is not done on the Indian view. IP198 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani View

On the pakistani view their is an Indian counter argument for every position. This is not done on the Indian view. The Pakistani view, is supposed to be the one section of the article that is completly in Pakistans pov. Please put counter arguments in the Indian view, or create a new section called Indian counter arguments to Pakistan view. Also instead of reverting, lets discuss any problems on the talk page. IP198 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets start from scratch on the Pakistani view, this way we can have references as well. It does not make any sense to have counter arguments on the Pakistani View. IP198 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan's View is misleading and twisted

It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.

I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.

So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.

Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.

Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.

So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.

Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani View has been replaced with official Pakistani stand on Kashmir Conflict- Please do not alter or delete the material edited in Pakistani View section as it has been sourced directly from Ministry of Foreign Affairs- Government of Pakistan, with formal permission. Permission has been granted for reference purposes only and cannot be re-produced without formal permission from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan. Therefore I will appreciate if somebody can fix its references and links to official Pakistani government web-site in order to understand Pakistan's official stand on Kashmir Conflict. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister during Accession

There are some strange inconsistencies under the "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947" heading. There was use of "Islamabad" (as a way of saying "Government of Pakistan"), when Islamabad didn't even exist in 1947. I fixed that up easily enough, but it got me suspicious. Then I noticed that it mentioned "Maharaja Hari Singh and Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir", first in reference to asking the Government of India for help, then in reference to "completing negotiations for accession". Now I only have one or two sources of info about this, and it's possible that they are biased against India, but they both agree that Sheikh Abdullah didn't become Prime Minister until after accession (in fact, him becoming Prime Minister was one of the conditions of accession). I could swear I editted to fix this, but I have a horrible memory, so I can't be sure. If someone has good knowledge about this, I'd appreciate a clarification. I could help fill in a bit of the messiness in the article, but as I said, I only have one or 2 sources, and it could be construed that they are biased towards India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babloyi (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I reverted the removal of Sheikh Abdullah because there was no explanation for it, which made me suspicious. But since you have pointed out the reason he was removed, I looked into it and you appear to be correct. Thank you for explaining this point. I took Sheikh Abdullah out of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 section, until someone comes up with better sources. PubliusFL 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of pakistani and indian veiw points and also kashmiri pundits

Well to put this as clear as possible there are far too many indians editing pakistani topics and manipulating data heavily the pakistani view point doesnt even have a single counter while indian veiws are posted in a very biased and propgandanist way.

I also think more attention should be payed on fake encounters carried out by indian troops whenever i edit it it is always deleted by some pro indian these pages needs a seriously needed bias check and updating ure ignoring muslims in kashmir and posting baseless pandit claims.

Misplaced Pages seriously needs to monitor indian propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BILLYBOY09 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 August 2007.

Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem.

Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem.

Kashmir conflict is often considered to be the basic reason for rivalry between India and Pakistan, it is however to be noted that the Two nation theory which principally denies that hindus and muslim can co-exist is the root cause of the conflict. the trustees of this theory went on to become the founders of pakistan. thus as far as the logic of pakistan goes kashmir must be ceeded as a muslim majority state to pakistan ( as per indian independence act 1946 )

However india which takes pride in it's religious and social diversity. can not, In any case accept The Two Nation Theory. Thus acceptance of kashmir as part of pakistan, is against the secular tradition of democratic india, and at the same time denial of claims on kashmir, will falter the foundation of Islamic republic of Pakistan. thus we cannot expect a solution to this problem in near future.

As long as the people of pakistan cherrish the Two nation theory. which advocates intolerence and hatred, peacefull co-existence of these mighty South Asian neighbours is not possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashutosh2405 (talk • contribs) 09:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Nehru's Promise

It is very significant fact that Nehru, then Prime Minster of India when the issue has raised,has promised the Kashmari peoples to decide their fortune according to their wishes,as history mentions in various occasions.If Maharaja Hari Singh can sold Kashmir to India it mean the Kashmir is property of India, and then what about the millions of peoples whom wishes are not accomplished to be independent.And Its too look like a kind of Martial Law which is compressing Kashmari people as over 0.8 million Indian Forces in the Indian Kashmir Zone.

My question is "When the Indian Leaders will obey the promise of their superior?" If they are not then why Nehru make promise just to misguide the world. and, Nehru do know that I have committed a false move about Kashmir and a Hindu Raja over 90% muslims also did not care.

And in the Pak-India disputes Misplaced Pages is not caring to be these articles neutral. Misplaced Pages official should care about the neutrality and should rely on sources that are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif Arshad Khan (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Samjhauta Express bombings

If the 2007 train fire bombings are not related to Kashmir then why is the event even listed on the time line? I don't know if that sentence needs to be removed or the event needs to be removed but someone in the know should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.228.44 (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorism", "terrorist"

All the words "terrorism", "terrorist" in this article need to be either closed in brackets or replaced with their neutral equivalents (insurgents, rebels, armed groups, etc.) as their usage violates Misplaced Pages NPOV policy.

This pertains to descriptions of all armed conflicts in the world.

Kacper (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested regarding an edit disagreement on the article Kashmir conflict. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute. Its major benefit is that the process provides an informal method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, a third opinion cannot be given without some discussion of the dispute. The first step in the third opinion request process is therefore to discuss the dispute on the article talk pages.

Discussion often leads to a resolution without third party involvement. I recommend beginning one here. If discussion does not lead to a resolution of the dispute, you are welcome to submit another third opinion request. Mmyotis 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section

I gave in some new arguments for the "Indian view" section but I did not source them. But these are valid arguments and i hope there allowed to stay in the article here. I spent the time and gave new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section, and i did not erase much. I mostly added, and erased very little. Please let these arguments stay, because they are good arguments from India's side. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, most of your information is highly contradictory and since this is a also a controversial topic, it really requires sources to most of the information already in the article. You can add the information again if you have proper sources. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. This is exactly why people hate wikipedia. Because people like you are so biast you cant handle another opinion. I mean I didnt erase much. All I did was add extra info. And the info I had was logical and factual. In other words I didnt say stupid things like KASHMIR BELONGS TO INDIA BECAUSE I SAY SO....NO....I GAVE LOGICAL arguments for INDIAS VIEW, that were not mentioned. And all you can come up with is that they are contradictory arguments? Can you explain one thing that I wrote that was not a logical argument or was contradictory? NO YOU CANT. AND YOU WONT. Becuase your not open minded to more options.....I love how this guy tells me my arguments are contradictory and contraversional, and gives me no examples to prove his points lol.....I mean the section is called India's view. And i gave more of Indias view that was not mentioned. And you erase it? Amazing. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your outrage is in vain simply because that's not how Misplaced Pages works. No matter how logical, coherent and rational your arguments may be, they are your opinions unless you can provide reliable sources to back up whatever you write. Opinions and original research count for nothing on Misplaced Pages, and must especially be avoided on sensitive article such as this. Also, if do you come to Misplaced Pages with reliable sources, it is imperative to distill their content and then edit the article to conform to the cardinal rule of neutrality.

I hope you understand what I've said and that you will refrain from personal attacks in the future. Have a nice day, Max 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Max I understand what your saying. But just because I dont cite sources (which by the way is done all over wikipedia) doesnt make my arguments untrue.....Ill give you ONE example.....Lots of Pakistanis say that Kashmiris should be free right? Well a logical response to that is that there are Balochis and Pashtuns in Paksitan that want to be free also, so why doesnt Paksitan let them be free as well?. So that is ONE example of a logical argument from the Indian side, and just because I dont cite it as a resource, its stilll logical argument. I mean right here on Misplaced Pages there is an article called PASHTUNISTAN, and it talks about the land that Pashtuns want. Now im not someone who knows, or cares to know, how to cite things on this website. But someone else can do it cant they? I mean there are so many aritcles on this site that are not cited (i assume) so why pick and chooose what to cite? And anyway like i said, someone else can cite it for me cus its on this website......as for personal attacks....no i was not just attacking for no reason. I was responding to what the other guy was saying. He wasnt using logic with me. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some arguments:

1. Pakistan invaded and stole a piece of Kashmir even before the Maharaja had decided which country to choose.

2. Kashmir was officially ceded to India by Hari Singh. It was agreed that the King decideds to who his state should be ceded to. Hari Singh chose India.

3. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "Muslims for Pakistan" argument as India has states with a larger minority population (%) than Jammu and Kashmir (e.g. Lakshwadeep: 99% Muslim, Nagaland: 89% Christian). People of these states have never been persecuted by the government for being minorities in Hindu majority India. Compare that with Pakistan's treatment of minorities, which have been systematically reduced from <12% of the population today to about >3%.

4. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join" argument, becuase by that logic Pakistan should have never been created in the first place because the majority of people didnt want to break up India to create a Pakistan the country in the first place.

5. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare Kashmir issue to Junagadh because Junagadh was a majority Hindu state. By accepting Junagadh into Pakistan, Pakistan would have contradicted its "Two Nation Theory" which explicitly stated "Hindus and Muslims can't live together as one nation". This policy has never been accepted by India. Till today India is secular (i.e. for everybody) while Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (i.e. for Muslims).

6. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare Kashmir issue to Hyderabad state because Hyderebad never showed any interest in Joining Pakistan. They proposed independence, which was completely turned down by the British. Moreover Hyderabad was bordered by all sides by India. This would be a threat for India, and a bigger threat for Hyderabad (had it not joined India) as it would have to depend on India for all external affairs (i.e. imports, exports, telecoms). India annexed the state because the Nizam employed Razakars (rouges) to attack the local populace in neighbouring states (which were already part of Indian Union). As such, India retaliated and overthrew the Nizam. The populace willingly joined India. Moreover Hyderabad (and Berar) were majority Hindu areas and would not have accomodated Pakistan's theory of creation (i.e. Two Nation Theory, whereby Hindus and Muslims cannot live as one state).

7. Pakistan claims that they advocate the notion of "self-determination of the people of the land". That's why they wanna "free" the Kashmiris, who they claim "have determined" wanting free state called Kashmir. Why then don't they practice that same notion for the Balochis and Pashtuns who want to seperate from Pakistan and have their own homeland? Why won't they respect the Pashtuns and Balochis "self-determination" to be free, and free them?

8. Azad Jammu and Kashmir act (Article 7) declared Islam to be the state religion of PoK, disqualified non-Muslims from election to the Presidency and forbade activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan. It prescribed in the oath of office the pledge "to remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan". How then are they gonna accomodate the non Muslims in Ladakh and Jammu? How are these native Kashmiris who are non-Muslims going to be represented?

9. Pakistan is constantly calling for a plebiscite. However for a UN Resolution mandating a plebiscite to be valid, Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir, as they are unrightfully occupying the area against the will of the Maharaja.

10. Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out Hindu & Sikh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a plebiscite from the Kashmiris. If a plebiscite is done, it should include the Kashmiri Pandits who were expelled from the state by Muslims driven by Pakistan.

11. While Pakistan supports a free Kashmir, India doesn't because Pakistan has been sending in insurgents to instill fear in the local populace to side them. A free Kashmir will only increase Pakistans grip over the region and will be a insurgent training ground like how Pakistan is today. In a future conflict, it is clear that the Kashmiris trained and instigated by Pakistan will not be neutral or side India. Moreover, Hindus and Buddhists in Jammmu and Ladakh will be systematically expelled like the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir Valley.

12. Pakistan claims it "Kashmir is a part of Pakistan as much as how Pakistan is a part of Kashmir". Then why did they give a large piece (almost 50,000 sq. km) of Kashmir to China in 1965, more so without the consent of the people? Till today, Pakistan recognises that area as a part of Xinjiang although the area has historically been a part of the Princely state of Kashmir. Pakistan accuses India of "tearing Kashmir apart", but does not realise that India claims Kashmir in full, while Pakistan claims only 5/6th of Kashmir. Hence, it is Pakistan who has torn Kashmir apart. The reason is simple, because Kashmir does not rightfully belong to Pakistan, they have no qualms giving parts of it away. Which country would give away land which is rightfully theirs?

13. Although, Azad means "independent", Pok is governed by a defacto puppet government whose independence is not recognised by any nation including Pakistan itself. It is administered and controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce "meaningful and representative democratic structures" in PoK. In this context, the absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly and the fact that PoK is governed through the "Ministry of Kashmir Affairs" in Islamabad proves how sincere they are regarding "Azad". Further that the "Kashmir Council" is dominated by Pakistani officials and the chief secretary, inspector-general of police, accountant-general and finance secretary in the PoK are all from Pakistan.

14. If Pakistan is so passionate about Kashmir, why then don't they develop it as how they develop the rest of Pakistan? Compare economy of IoK with PoK. IoK's economy is about 12 times the size of PoK's. IoK has one of the lowest poverty rates compared to all Indian states (lower than even Maharashtra, home to India's financial capital Mumbai). In comparison, PoK is one of the poorest regions in all of Pakistan.

15. While Pakistan always accuses India of curbing freedom of Kashmiris, the World Freedom Report report proved Indian Kashmir to be "Partly Free", while Pakistani Kashmir was "Not Free". There is worse off persecution in PoK, but this doesn't get reported as there is no freedom of speech in Pakistan, as how there is in India.

16. Pakistan argues that they had already designated the "K" for Kashmir (in the name Pakistan, i.e. Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan), so it's rightfully theirs. Then why didn't they designate a "B" for Bengal / Bangladesh when it formed a prominant part of Pakistan pre-1971? Did it mean by that accord alone it wasn't theirs, because there's no "B" designated?

Thanks. 60.50.65.58 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir Uprising 2008

I have added basic information about the latest massive pro-freedom uprising in the Valley, I will add more content to it later on and also try to maintain neutral PoV or PoV of all the three sides, as can be seen, Pakistan has little to do with the current uprising, so I'd say their are Pakistani,Indian and Kashmiri POV.

Thank You.

Image copyright problem with Image:Kashmir-Accession-Document-a.jpg

The image Image:Kashmir-Accession-Document-a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Kashmir-Accession-Document-b.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

the Article has serious Errors!

Deeply dissapointed the way facts have been presented here, and elsewhere in the[REDACTED] relating to the topic of Kashmir. Am not saying it is biased peice of work, but am saying it completly ignores some important facts. am talking specifically about the events that unfolded in 1947.

If someone has access to this book already mentioned in the wikipedia: Freedom at Midnight, the book is by an Englishmen, and hence has an element of neutrality. The section pertaining to Kashmir needs to be rewritten, and copied elsewhere where required.

Please someone look into the issue! Else I will surely take time out to rewrite the mentioned section. Msolution (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also disappointed in this article. Hopefully it can be cleaned up and some good information can be added. Good luck rewriting the section, I'll take a look at it later.

AetherSage (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) AetherSage

Human Rights Abuse

The second paragraph of this section has a indesputable bias. Words like "innocent", "terrorist", and the phrase "terrorists of Compassionate Islam" have no place in the article. It's one thing to present some historical perspective on historical injustices, another to do so in the style that has been presented —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khxoxkh (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Sucks

Look, I came here to get a one minute overview of what this dispute is about, and I read for 10 min and still barely understood. Trim this thing down or provide a summary! Even the summary list of India and Pakistan's claims is like 20 bullets long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.197 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits of User:Ontopofcosts

His edits have recently sparked a large edit war. Would the persons involved please discuss this here to prevent any more edit wars? Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please note I said discuss, not argue. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also note that the two main parties, User:Ontopofcosts and User:Algebraic123 are blocked until 3 January 2009. When their blocks have expired, they are strongly encouraged to participate in this discussion. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I was not invloved in the edit war but did an edit just before it started. I see that the page has been protected because of the edit war but I will ask the admins to kindly revert the page to the last edit made by user: Inferno, Lord of Penguins. Right now the page holds the edits made by user:Ontopofcosts. These edits are just removal of information that is properly sourced and there is no reason to remove them.

This is the first revert that caught my eye made by Ontopofcosts ] The edit summary contained "original research" the reason for editing which is clearly misleading as cited info was removed. I reverted it asking to pinpoint the original research section, which was within a minute reverted back to his version by Ontopofcosts without giving any reason whatsoever,here ].

Afterwards the edits ensued between user:Algebraic123 who reverted back to cited version and user:Ontopofcosts who kept on reverting to his, deleting cited info without reason.]

User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins reverted again to last version edited by me ] but it was again reverted by Ontopofcosts. User: Ontopofcosts continuously kept on reverting edit by three different users without giving any valid reason for it. Right now the article holds the uncited version. If he/she have any valid reason to revert the cited information I'll ask to discuss the matter here or the version need to be reverted to the revision 261311706 by Inferno, Lord of Penguins, which was the version before the edit wars started.203.99.53.70 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.53.70 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry about the signature.I was logged off accidently.September88 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus I'll just like to clarify that the information reverted by user:Ontopofcosts stating it "original research" is published news from these three neutral and reliable resources

] BBC

] Human Rights Watch

] Time (magazine)

You can see here ]

Removing them makes no sense and as I said before needs to be added back.September88 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ontopofcosts is the banned user Hkelkar. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Algebraic123 must be watched

I haven't even touched the Kashmir conflict page yet and User:Algebraic123 already started making baseless allegations against me on my talkpage. I request everyone to keep a watch on the user! Pen.of.truth (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree about User:Algebraic123. he needs to be kept an eye on. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

February 209: Neutrality Disputed

The neutrality of this article is strongly disputed. Pro-Indian editors are aggresively pushing a pro-Indian POV and reverting valid edits by other[REDACTED] editors.

In the article the call from India asking US to declare pakistan terrorist state was made by Indian Prime minister(vajpayee0 and deputy prime minister ( advani). This was the official position of legally elected representatives of India and so qualifies as official Indian govt view

none of the statements in Pakistan view have any reference to a govt website. somebody knowledgeable might want to work on them. Wikireader41 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist propaganda

This is totally pro indian the amount of unsourced indian views is amazing why isnt any sane editor deleting them or atleast bring back the pakistani views which are deleted by wikireader the pro indian lobbyist? 86.154.149.150 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the 'Pakistani view' section. NONE of the comments there are sourced from ANY pakistani Government website and that section is in desperate need for improvement. So instead of ranting here can somebody knowledgeable work on the section and improve it. surely pakistani govt has an official position !!!! and please refrain from calling name. I do not get paid for doing this so I am not a lobbyist. just trying to help the world understand the truth behind Kashmir conflict . cheers :) Wikireader41 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I think kashmiri cause has been remarkably negatively influenced by Pakistan. pakistan in a recent BBC poll was near bottom ofthe table of countries considered a "positive influence" in the world ( tied with Iran) BBC worldservice polll 2009.

Kashmiris today would have been MUCH better off if pakistan had left them alone. Any kid in Kashmir ( as well as balawaristan) will tell you that. So all you Islamofascists out there chill and have a cold beer.15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, Wikireader41, I thought that alcohol in Islam is Gunaah. Although, in my religion, the Gods seem to drink it without resulting in any visible after effects! Oh, and forgot to say man, "Cheers"!!! Shovon (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

I hadn't bothered to read this talk page for a while and now that I have all I can say is hmm - these remarks are a bit of an eye-opener.

Kashmir would have been better off as part of India? Ask any "kid in Kashmir ( as well as balawaristan)", well whatever their opinions of the Pakistani state - there is near universal antipathy at the idea of joining India (and believe me they far more loyal to Pakistan than Kashmiris in J&G state are to India). In the Northern Areas people reject the idea of being considered Kashmiri let alone being part of India. For arguments sake say the whole of the former state had become part of India in 1947,by the 1956 States Reorganisation Act the erstwhile state would have been split up into its constituent units. How would it have been under Indian rule? Would we have problems similar to the Nagaland problem would we have groups akin to the National Liberation Front of Tripura? And religious groups supporting them.

There has been quite a lot of violence in Indian Kashmir, quite a lot of local anger against the government, curiously too most people in the Kashmir Valley as well as the Northern Areas etc consider 'cold beer' to be Gunaah. Perhaps it's attitudes like these which are alienating them, if Jammu had been part of Pakistan, would it be cool if I said, chill out guys and have a beef burger or would that be adharma? Pahari Sahib 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day wikireader will turn out to be a sock of hkelkar and his deletion of valid pakistani viewpoints will be reinserted just a matter of time by the way indian occupied kashmir struggle seems to be gaining ground in the international community especially mr Obama well hinduism is after all declining in the west and especially in India islam is the fastest growing faith after all 86.162.67.153 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Not to mention david miliband ha ha indians first worshipped obama now they abuse him againt hindu back stabbing at its best 86.162.67.153 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What About the People of Kashmir?

Apart from the excessive Indian propaganda in this article another major shortfall is the lack of attention to the people of Kashmir themselves who are a neglected but critical party to this dispute. It is presented as if everything began in 1947 between India and Pakistan and there is minimal reference to the historical background to the Kashmir conflict. For example the fact that Kashmir has enormous religous significance to the Hindu people is over looked. Hindu's have gone on holy pilgrimage to Kashmir for thousands of years so clearly this is important to Indians. Also, Kashmir has historically been independent and many Kashmiri's would like to be independent of both India and Pakistan. The views of the people of Kashmir need to be considered. --HotRaja (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

hot raja the ONLY reason kashmiris are not free is that pakistani tribals attacked kashmir in 1947 forcing the maharaja to accede. subsequently they refused to withdraw thereby preventing the plebiscite. nehru had agreed to the plebiscite and would have gone through with it had pakistan withdrawn. they were not willing to face the potential embarrasment of muslim dominated kashmir joining India thereby making the two nation theory look bad and jinnah look like an idiot. you might want to ask some pakistanis who claim to be pro kashmir why they did not withdraw from kashmir as clearly required by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 ?????? I have actually lived in Ram Munshi Bagh and know kashmir very well. the true enemy of kashmiris ( & pakistanis) is not India but wahhabi islam. It is interesting that pakistanis believe that kashmiris want to join a country which for most of its existence has been a dictatorship. It is like asking for freedom to go to prison. Sufi islam will be dead if pakistanis have their way. Luckily the chance of that happening is ZERO. cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the above shows a rather biased interpretations of events, to say that "the ONLY reason kashmiris are not free is that pakistani tribals attacked kashmir in 1947 forcing the maharaja to accede" is to make a couple of fallacious assumptions. Namely that the J&K Princely State was a homogeneous entity, it wasn't - also making the assumption that everyone in the state would have supported the Maharaja. Not true - also why would there be so much trouble and hardship inflicted upon people in "freedom", this may prove to be instructive. This wahhabi stuff you have mention is a red herring, just seems to be a way conflating and obfuscating genuine grievances and issues with what is actually a negligible viewpoint. Pahari Sahib 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pahari Sahib Indian Kashmir is more free than Pakistan administered kashmir ( not to mention rest of pakistan). we are upto our 11th chief minister I am not making the assumption that J & K is a homogenous entity. Ladakh Jammu Balawaristan are obviously very different from the valley. wahhabi islam is the mortal threat facing pakistan. I do not believe their was a popular movement to join pakistan EVER. this is a concocted idea. While some muslims from the valley wanted freedom from both India AND pakistan at one time I think most people have realized the impracticality of that proposition. the militancy has been run by hired non Kashmiri 'Starving Jihadis' who were out of a job after soviets left afghanistan an supported by pak army wanting to avenge its humiliating defeat and brutal dismemberment of pakistan in 1971. What a bunch of misguided pakistanis believe is of no consequence. BTW do you believe 9/11 was done by CIA to discredit the 'Religion of Peace'??? I wouldn't be surprised. have a nice day ;-)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Unassessed India articles
• Unknown-importance India articles
• Unassessed-Class India articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Unknown-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Unassessed-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• B-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles