Talk:Kashmir/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Let's work to make this a featured article!!!

IF we at Wikipedia can work together, with NPOV then we can try to do our best to make this a featured article. If that can be achieved then that would be the crowning glory since it's not any article that we are talking about here but the most controversial subject. It's easy to make featured articles out of uninteresting and relatively insignificant topics but to do something of this calibre requires some work.

The day a topic like this becomes a featured article is the day I would truly reckon Wikipedia has come of age. I'm already pushing for featured article status for Adolf Hitler despite any negative impressions on that man. Here's to my hope. Cheers. Idleguy 04:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article can be made a lot better, and possibly can get to FA status. However, that would require several things
  • NPOV, the article should not sound like a blog for any of Indian, Pakistani or Kashmiri nationalists, it should be balanced
  • References should be provided for all kind of statements
  • Speculation should be avoided. The article should only represent facts.
If these things can be maintained, the article can progress. Thanks. --Ragib 04:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
We need some pics on Kashmir. I have plenty but unfortunately I took those pics some 5 yrs ago (before the age of digital cameras) and my scanner isn't working.
I've removed some crappy stuff but more effort is required. 75% of the article is on Kashmiri history. It just goes on and on. That section needs to be summarised and most of the material should go to History of Kashmir and Terrorism in Kashmir. Thanks --IncMan 14:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, we need to reduce the history section down to a summary, and add more to culture. For example, we can talk about the Cashmere wool in the economy section, have some nice images added etc. Also, more on Places of interest can be added. Thanks. --Ragib 18:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


A featured article? Why not?

Anonymous Editor, IndBoy, Ragib, Idleguy and others _ I say if you guys (assume you are males) manage to get a mutually satisfactory discussion going, share your dialectical burdens (that certainly have their historical 'karmic' roots) and arrive at an enlightening resolution, you will have majored in three great subjects.

1) Wikipedian enlightenment

2) A quantum jump from a pre-lutherian ingrained religious semantic and a perception of the world and human beings as religious entities ONLY and not as market driven rationalizing egos or from media- and (unfortunately in Indian Sub-Continent and Islamic-Near East still extant ) from-well-fed-clergy-class–driven sociological Durkheim-Solidarity-Inducing historically-imprisoned economically-impoverished helplessly-manipulated in-ignorance-wallowing citizens of fictional nations carved by some adventurers from West on toilet walls, (from Western elite, who always knew the art of putting their religion on a standby when political expediency demanded it). Man you will be free! I am a Muslim from Kashmir _ and I wiped religion from my slate. I never saw a religious man or a woman so far, only people with ingrained convictions, opportunists and fanatics and lot and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of schools kids with their catechisms and national hymns and national football heroes, most of all in above locations! Grow up! Reform your convictions _ know them for what they are, accidents of birth and history that shows as much rationality and truth as the rich fat film actor depicting a malnourished ideal poor-man in Asian films, just replacing the old pantheon with new divinities, and cashing in on the poor man's hard earned cents. And to those who have argued here, forget not that you are at Wikipedia, talk Wikipedian, which is in the end actually a tribute to polytheism and syncretism and not to dogmatism, but a polytheism based not on mythology but logos! How long will you remain imprisoned in the clergy jargon of bygone centuries? Or use the modern languages in service of quixotic ideals? Recheck your convictions, may be they may show some acquired insanity of that shapeless collective intangible crowd! For that is what it appeared to me, as I went through some of your points of view! A waste of time. How well could you use the same energy for more constructive criticism to arrive at diverse ramifications of truth than expounding your inherited dogmas, catechisms and weird convictions! You are welcome to have your religion though, but don’t depicts those with other convictions as more evil than you. Your truth the only valid one? If you are really religious, you need neither convince others nor disparage other religions.

3) If you folks here don’t manage to resolve atleast in theory a historically inherited conflict, how do you expect the three Nations (India, Pakistan and China) to do it? Nations are crowds too, they become enlightened when individuals like you set the example. In that sense I wish you all a real Socratic enlightenment, which will pay tribute there where it is due, be it to Buddha, Gandhi Confucius, the old Testament Prophets of the Jews and Muslims or Jesus. For Socrates is the one who can formulate a question precisely. And Wikepedains (and one day maybe the Nations) will look here for answers. Get to work guys! I wish you success!

4)This subject has not only the potential to become a featured article, but could be a milestone for one of the great issues of our times, the bungling up of religion, politics and market-economy in the minds of opinion-consumers!

Sincerely, An old Kashmiri WishWell 03:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues

<<< An option favoured by many Kashmiris is independence, but both Pakistan and India are against this. >>> This line be deleted. As it is a mere opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.251.0.55 (talk • contribs) . yo ragib its ure muslim bbrother that's giving bomb threats not jimshort —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.54.90 (talk • contribs) . <--- There is actually a MORI Poll which backs this "mere opinion." Also, a number of the organizations fighting against Indian Occupation also speak very strongly against Pakistan's claim to Kashmir on their web sites. Sure, some Kashmiris would like to be part of Pakistan. Some others would like to remain part of India. But non-Pakistani or Indian biased information points to a strong tendency toward wanting independence.

I feel that the above lines should be deleted. The question of "wanting indepenence has been inserted without reference to the source from where the opinion was taken. The topic is also debatable as it assumes that only those currently residing in Kashmir are entitled to an opinion. The Kashmiri Pandits who have been displaced from their homeland also have an opinion. The topic should be expanded to give a truer picture or else deleted. Ckshayin 18:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Ckshayin

More images on culture, economy etc.

The article could use pics on kashmiri women in their traditional dress doing a dance or a buddhist monk or any other image that is related to the culture etc. some images on the economic activity of the people here would be a welcome change from the political and historical emphasis this topic is placing. Idleguy 10:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Removed errors

The article mentions simla treaty included the UN plebiscite. This is not true. As a look into the simla treaty original will reveal, the treaty does not tread on the UN resolution on the plebiscite. It just uses the fairness of United Nations charter to resolve the dispute. So I've removed the statement linking simla agreement and the plebiscite. Simla treaty

Secondly there has been no official record by either india or pakistan of the PoWs being ill-treated or dealt with in any other inhuman manner as the Geneva convention stipulates. Infact 195 of these PoWs were to be put on war crimes trial by Bangladesh [1] but India decided against it. Mentioning these facts on PoW issue here, that are related to Bangladesh would also be out of context. I'll try to incorporate these facts on the pardon given to PoWs in the Bangladesh Liberation War if needed. tx Idleguy 10:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Other than the Simla treaty, the 1971 war has very little to do with Kashmir. --Ragib 18:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to the Simla treaty is from the Indian Embassy website, hardly a neutral source, and section (i) (i.e the beginning!) states 

"(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.  "

The UN charter includes UN resolutions, like the one asking for a plebiscite!

Dear anon, from now on, please leave a signature. As for your comments, well I am quite confused about what you exactly meant. A treaty's text is fixed, and no matter what the source is, the treaty's text would be the same, and the section 1 will state the same text. I checked out this site which is apparently a non-Indian site, and it also has the same text as what you quoted. I urge you to find all sites that has the treaty's text, and show the discrepancies between whatever you quoted and what the treaty states. I bet you'd NOT find any difference. Thanks. --Ragib 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oddity

Have you ever noticed that the places people are most willing to kill and die for are the places where life is so hard few people would want to live in, if it were not for history? Why is it that civilized, rational nations will threaten each other with nuclear weapons over arid, parched land and yet no-one would consider bombing each other over a tropical paradise? It defies logic. Dave 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

True, and I thought I was the only one who thought on these lines. If someone predicts that 100 years from now the whole world would nuke each other for Antarctica, I don't think i'll be surprised. Idleguy 03:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
You can have it! You can have it, our part of Antarctica. It's disappearing anyway ):- Moriori 03:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Why take over the world when your home is all you need? -Prysorra


Well, given the global warming thing, Antarctica may very well becoem a tropical paradise soon.Dave 12:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It once was.....I consider this unseasonably cold weather anyway. "During the Cambrian period Gondwana had a mild climate." Antarctica:) Prysorra

massive edits/blanking by 202.165.255.17

There were several massive POV edits by anon 202.165.255.17 (talk · contribs). The anon completely rewrote sections of the article with POV content. I reverted the edits, and would like to invite the anon 202.165.255.17 to discuss the matter here before making such huge changes. Thanks. --Ragib 16:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Indian and Pakistani view

I don't feel the section is well written on the Pakistani view. To begin with, only the first paragrapgh of the Pakistani view actually deals with a point of view, while the rest deals with Pakistani government actions. A point of view is a thought, not an action.

Secondly, the Indian view successfully retorts everything put forward in the Pakistani view. Can nobody put forward a better argument for Pakistan's claim?

The article mentions that "An option favoured by many Kashmiris is independence", but why is this point of view not represented?

Comment

Huh, that's funny..

India is a secular hypocracy (not democracy) You know I've been reading in these pages on wikipedia the repeated claim that India is a secular democracy. And I couldn't understand that how can an illegal occupier of land in Kashmir ( as judged by the United Nations resolutions), can claim to be a democracy, until I bought the Indian Dictionary of Standard English to find out what the definition of democracy is in India. This is what it says in the Indian Dictionary of Standard English under the defintion of democracy:

Democracy: a system of government that publicly characterises its policies or actions in a manner contradictory to the actual purposes and/or effects of those policies or actions. (from Gr. Demo-: to pretend, put on a show + Gr. -cracy: strength, to govern), democracy (noun) An illegal of occupation of land that does not belong to a country. Also see: hypocracy (synonym). And then I said to myself, Oh I see, that's what they mean by democracy. Now it all makes sense.

So, from now on, whenver you read,

India is a secular democracy, substitute it with,

India is a secular hypocracy.


Regarding above--

The constitution of India says India is a secular, democratic republic and no amount of what you caricaturise democracy or India to be changes that.

Regarding the "illegal occupation" of J & K kindly refer to the tribals from Pakistan invading the independent princely state of J & K and the consequent extending of Indian military support to J & K after its signing the *legal* Instrument Of Accession, to determine whose actions constitute "illegal occupation". Also regarding the UN resolutions, kindly note that it asks for "demilitarization" and holding of a "free and impartial plebiscite" over the whole state of J & K, which includes the Pakistani held part of J & K and the Aksai Chin portion of J & K. How far is Pakistan willing to go in ensuring these requirements for a plebiscite?

Finally note the views of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000 on his visit to Islamabad when he said that after such a long period of time, the UN resolutions on J & K had become, in his words, "irrelevant". 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi there, From your rude interpretation above, I know its next to impossible to change your view on the secular fabric of India. I dont blame you for your thoughts because you have to come and live in India to understand how the system works here.

I am myself an Indian from Chennai (earlier called Madras) which is in Southern India and can be described as the heartland of dravidian culture. We, 'Madrasis' differ from our northern, western and eastern Indian bretheren in ALL aspects of life. We look different, our lifestyle is different, our language is different and in some cases even religion. Will you believe if I said that most people in my state can't understand the National language - Hindi? Yet, we consider ourselves Indian.

I do not say that India is perfect. We have our own problems. We have had to deal with Babri Masjid, Gujarat, Punjab (Sikh suppression), LTTE (tamil nadu and northern srilanka) and insurgency in our eastern states. But with all these issues, we have stood the test of time. Whenever you point out the negative aspects of secularism in India, the above mentioned incidents are the ones you mention. But inspite of all that, you will find that Sikhs are the ones who are most patriotic in India. Conduct a poll and you will find that almost all Indian Muslims will want to stay in India (even given a chance of moving to pakistan). If the right wing Hindu parties like the BJP tried to infuse communal tension, it was predominantly Hindu-yet-secular India that drove them off power.

A standing example of the secular fabric of this country is the fact that it has a Roman Catholic woman leading the party in power at the Indian Union with a Sikh Prime Minister and a Muslim President - all the the healm of affairs in Hindu majority India. We love Abdul Kalam, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi as much as we do Vajpayee (who you must know that most Indians feel is the 'right man in the wrong party').

So, hereafter when you talk of Kashmir, please dont invoke religion. Given the problems India has had from the Pakistan's policy of bleeding India to death followed by Bangladesh - a hotbed of terrorism, LTTE and its suicide bombers in the south all supplemented by an unstable monarchy in the only Hindu kingdom in the world and an aggresive dragon to the north of it, any person woth the right senses would certify it to be a secular. Again I say - it may not be perfect. But it is improving.

With your claims on religion, think for a second on how well Pakistan or Bangladesh have fared with an Islamic regime? It is often termed as a failed state that envies the development of its wealthy neighbor. If you need to talk about religion again, talk when your country is doing well and does not depend on America and China for money - all of which it throws in madrassas, weapons and terrorists anyway.68.193.247.155 01:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)





Hope this helps clear things up a bit. :) The Village Idiot 14:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir/Archive01"


"Kashmiri population isnt really happy with the Indian Governement"

That's not what the democratically elected Ministers have said in the past 50 years, not to mention the ex-Prime Minister of independent Kashmir...



How about a section on the nuclear arms race and testing between the two countries? I'd say that it's a pretty important aspect of the dispute.


All I can say is too bad for the Kashmiris. If they have a problem being apart of India, they should pick a different country to live in. They had the option of leaving for Pakistan, they REFUSED! Also, this may be opinion-based. But the Muslims have all the land in the world. Hindus hardly have any at all. Anyway, Indian solders are NOT terrorists. A terrorist is a person from an IRREGULAR force. By that definition, no goverment military can be considered a terrorist. Also, have you been to Kashmir? How do you know a majority of them want independence. When journalists go, they distort the picture. They may find 9 pro-Indians, 2 pro-Pakistanis, and 3 pro-independence. However, in their article, they would put all three arguments in. Making it seem as if most Kashmiris don't want to be apart of India. Also, this whole problem didn't start until 1989. Until then, Kashmir didn't have any problems.

Number of Hindus in Kashmir

The Democraphics section has the following statement fjhfgjfghjfghjfjgjhfjfgfjgjfgjhgjfgjgfhjghfgjhjgfjfgh

Not Wikipedia standard

I don't think we want this standard of material on Wikipedia. As a reader I am thoroughly disappointed. The controversy should be removed to a different page. The material that should be considered to be added:

  • Considered as heaven on Earth by Moghul emperors and the consequent gardens.
  • Myth of the Christ walking upto Kashmir as final resting place after resurrection (somebody needs to research this and the source).
  • The tectonic plates in that area.
  • I know for sure that the language of Kashmir, Kashmiri, doesn't have a script of its own. All Indian languages have their own scripts and most derived from the Devnagri script. This maybe exlpored and/or expanded.
  • Someone has already mentioned the rich folk art - carpets, textiles, pashmina (the process as well), cashmere. This folk art is pretty expensive and rates up there alongwith persian handicrafts.
  • The ethnic roots - since Kashmiris don't look like say people from Central or South India.

To re-emphasize, this is an effort to create an encyclopedia and not a playground for bickering. Yes, you all have been scolded.

earthquake appeals

Hey - there is so much activity going on to do with fundraising for the earthquake. Can we unite to put something up on main page? Maybe listing major 'Live Aid' type projects? Autumnleaf 15:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

redirects

Funny, why the wiki for Singapore and other geographical locations forewords with the origin of the geographical name, while Kashmir does not. Is it because Kashmir is derived from the Sankrut 'Kashyap-Mar' where Kashyap was a Hindu sage? If thats the case the entire argument about Kashmiri Independence falls on head. Independence of whom from what? A land of Converted Hindus becomes different from the land of Original Hindus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.81.15 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2005.

Human Rights Abuses

I really think this article is not balanced in the sense that is devoted quite a bit to terrorism, but very little muted criticim of Indian human rights abuses. That those abuses have been almost removed from discussion subtracts one of the largest sticking points between India and Pakistan. At the minimum, it should be said that in Pakistan, the perception is that there are mass human rights abuses going on and that they are backed up by both anecdotal and factual accounts.

Response... Human rights abuses cannot be demanded from people who believe that the punishment for a thief is that his hand be cut off. You have to move from the age of the Prophet to the modern age first.

That is not a proper response at all, let it be noted. In any case, I have a problem with the Human Rights Abuses Section. The last portion of it is irrelevant and completely misleading. It talks about human rights abuses such as rape and extra judicial killing in the first section, and then ends with the didactic that Pakistan-administered Kashmir is listed as "not free" and India-controlled Kashmir is "partly free" by the Freedom of the World 2006 report. It says "They are unable to determine whether they have decreased because of Indian administered controls. The report brushed aside claims of improvement in the scenario." This is in reference to an Amnesty International report, and it is referring to purported improvements in the number of rapes and extra-judicial killings. That's all fine. But then next sentance is completely irrelevant and misleading. It tries to say: Amnesty International won't recognize improvements in rape and extra-judicial killings, but India Kashmir is more free than Pakistan controlled. This is misleading, because all of Pakistan is listed as not free in that report, and Pakistan Kashmir is more incorporated into Pakistan than its Indian counterpart into India. The point is, that list of free countries has nothing to do with the Human Rights abuse problem that the section was talking about. So I will clean it up. 128.91.25.69 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)asr

Current event

Kashmir article doesnot deal with current event. May be Kashmir conflict or something like that may be current. Hence removing the current event tag --Vyzasatya 22:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

  • Moved the material regarding conflict to Kashmir Conflict. Everyone who wants to bicker and fight can do their in Kashmir conflict talk page
  • This article will be written balancedly and made into feature article

--Vyzasatya 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Image is POV

Just noticed that this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_Kashmir_Standoff_2003.png seems to imply that Pakistan does not claim Jammu and Kashmir territory. Someone should change that. --Blacksun 04:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup - May 2006

Someone just added significant text [2] that is completely unformatted, uncited, and needs work to see what (if any) can be incorporated into the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is mispelled in Urdu.

Kashmir is mispelled in Urdu. Can someone please fix it?

Reorganised External Links

I have re-organised the external links into categories. I hope it helps people.

Wullar 11:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

?????

I made considerable changes to the External Links section, putting in a lot of time and now someone has changed them back. I am new and don't know much about Wiki, so please help me out. Did I do something wrong?

Wullar

Modern History...

I am not sure as to the intent of the "Modern History". I appologize in advance seeing that there have been many religious statements made in the last discussion on the topic, but I am a bit offended by the content, or lack thereof, of that section of the article. As a Hindu, it was not easily read, but I understand that the barbarities committed against Muslims have occured. What I fail to understand is why this section was not juxtaposed to another that openly stated the gruesome attacks that were committed by Muslims against Hindus in the decades to follow.

I found it simply disheartning to see that a smaller section at the bottom of the article stated that "According to an estimate by Central Intelligence Agency, most of the 500,000 Kashmiris, internally displaced due to the ongoing violence, are Hindus. [2]."

Where is the unbiased nature of Wikipedia on this occassion? You openly recognize the past atrocities committed against Muslims, but hide the numerous crimes that were committed against Hindus?

I propose that the sittutation is handled a bit differently. Since the section is titled "Modern History" juxtapose the pre-existing statements to a newly edited version that discusses war crimes committed agianst Hindus.

Discuss Kashmir minus Jammu and Ladakh

As this is the page on Kashmir you should not bring in Jammu, Ladakh and other areas under Pakistani occupation to the discussion. It should be limited to Kashmir.

Since I belong to Jammu I am very offended by the generic use of "Kashmir" for the entire state and its people. The name of the state has always been J&K, even before partition. The use of the term Kashmir for the entire state allows the politicians of the valley to hog the limelight in international fora. dfgdfgdfgdfgdfdfgdfgdfgsdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgdfgfgdfgdfgf

Who controls the contents of this page?

I am new to Wikipedia. I posted “The role of United Nations” and “Amnesty International’s Report 2006”. These are not my personal views. The role of United Nations and Amnesty International’s Report 2006 are verifiable.

I am wondering what is the editorial policy of Wikipedia. Who controls the contents? For the convenience of readers I am reproducing the posts.


The role of United Nations

United Nations passed a resolution demanding that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan to be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

India is consistently denying to organize a plebiscite according to United Nations’ resolution.


Amnesty International’s Report 2006

According to Amnesty International’s Report 2006 “In July, four juveniles aged between 11 and 15 were shot dead by [Indian] paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles in Kupwara district. Local people said that the boys had participated in a marriage party and gone for a stroll but ran away when ordered to stop. They said that the army had been informed of possible movements of people attending the party late at night.”

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. Here are some explanations of the questions you have raised. Hopefully they will be useful:

  • The incident of 4 people getting killed in July last year was noteworthy as a news item in July last year, but not an encyclopedia article. If instead you have some overall statistics covering a longer period, it will be a useful addition to History of the Kashmir conflict and Terrorism in Kashmir. I think such statistics are already presented in the article. deeptrivia (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmir/Archive_3&oldid=951364217"