Talk:Kashmir conflict/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Mentioning Demchok

I believe that it is useful to specifically mention that India also administers the Demchok region because this area is disputed between China and India, with India retaining control. Demchok lies within the newly created union territory of Ladakh, which is mentioned within the article, but China only claims Demchok; this dispute differs from Pakistan's stance, for example, which claims all of Ladakh as a part of their territory. I think that by not mentioning Demchok specifically, an implicit bias in favor of India is made since it obscures Demchok as a part of Indian-administered Ladakh, which China does not agree with.Somenolife (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, couldn’t one just state China’s claims (which is broader than just the village of Demchok) in the same sentence where it is mentioned that India and Pakistan claim the entire region? Then there’s no redundancy in listing Demchok in the other sentence. Also, I suppose the Pakistan claim for all of the region needs to be modified since they relinquished their claim to the parts administered by China. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Demchok is part of Ladakh. So, you can't say "Ladakh and Demchok". It doesn't make sense and it would be confusing.

The rest of what you say is also not correct. China also claims and administers Aksai Chin, which is also part of Ladakh. This contradicts your "China only claims Demchok".

It is also not true that India "administers Demchok". It administers part of it.

As for Pakistan, I haven't seen any definition of what Pakstan considers part of Ladakh and what it doesn't. The Palistani maps don't define the Ladakh-China border.

Finally, there is a large dose of WP:OR in everything you say because there is no known reliable source on Kashmir conflict that talks about Demchok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I’m assuming you’re addressing Somenolife, not what I said? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the confusion. I would also add that "Demchok" in this context means the stretch of the Indus valley that is marked as disputed on the maps. Some people call it the "Demchok sector". See the Charding Nullah page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Also to clarify, what I meant by modifying the statement in the lead about the Pakistan claim is that the lead currently says

Both India and Pakistan claimed the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, although Pakistan has recognized Chinese sovereignty over the Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin since 1963

. My proposed modification is to just state the current claims of all three nations: India claims the entirety of the former princely state, Pakistan claims the entirety outside of Aksai Chin + Trans-Karakoram Tract, and China claims Aksai Chin + Trans-Karakoram Tract + anything else that may be supported by RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am unsure what is confusing you. I understand that both Aksai Chin and Demchok are considered a part of Ladakh, but so is Gilgit Baltistan. The point I am making is that only the Demchok sector of Indian administered Ladakh is claimed by China. I think it is relevant to mention this area separately as I am sure that PRC maps display it as a part of their territory.

@MarkH21: If you can make you proposal work, then I see no problem with it.Somenolife (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ladakh, as defined on Wikipedia, does not include Gilgit Baltistan. But it does include Demchok. So, I am afraid you are speaking apparent nonsense.

I maintain that your proposals are WP:OR. Please find a source that says anything about Demchok in the context of Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The CIA map in this article includes the Demchok sector in the Chinese claims. A Washington Post article also mentions that China claims it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of them "says" anything about Demchok. Yeah, when maps are drawn, something has to be put there. But what is there to say about it as part of the conflict? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This academic paper gives a detailed look at the border claims, saying on page 39:

South of the Aksai Chin the two British lines and the present Indian claim more or less agree. India, however, claims possession of Demchok and Khurnak, both of which places were shown by British maps as being in Tibet [...] In the Demchok region the British line followed a course very similar to that of the present Chinese claim.

The discussion on page 45 is also relevant in a general sense. Page 49 gives a detailed look at the historical claims and modern claims regarding Demchok and Khurnak.

From recent news articles, there were some recent standoffs (2019, same one, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2014, 2009) The article here also mentions a disputed area at Trigs Heights on the eastern border of Ladakh. Bara Hoti is also another area of dispute, which an India Times article described:

Barahoti is located in the Middle Sector of the 3440 km long LAC. China keeps asserting itself here. Back in 1958, India and China termed Barahoti as a disputed territory, where neither side would send their troops. In the 1962 war, China only focussed its operations in the western and eastern sectors.

(other sources: 1969 CIA report, FirstPost)

This should be sufficient to show that the claim should be mentioned. There are surely more academic sources, in particular, on the Demchok and Khurnak claims. I’d be willing to delve deeper (so we are not relying on one academic paper, one WSJ article, and several Indian newspaper articles) and then add some mention to the article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21, I am sorry, I am unable to figure out which of these sources has made Demchok to be part of "Kashmir conflict". Can we focus on the issue at hand please? (I appreciate the source by the way. But it was Alastair Lamb's book that was used in writing the Charding Nullah article. So I believe his material has been already covered there.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure what the issue is. Demchok is claimed by India to be part of Ladakh and the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Demchok is part of the disputed areas in the Kashmir region between India and China.

If it’s about directly using the words Kashmir conflict, here is a European Foundation for South Asian Studies overview on the Kashmir conflict that lists Demchok in the disputed areas, an article from The Diplomat doing the same, and an academic paper:

The Kashmir conflict has become the apple of discord primarily between India and Pakistan, and secondarily with China, since their first year of independence. [...] Today, India administers approximately 43 percent of the region (Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier); Pakistan administers approximately 37 percent of the region (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit- Baltistan); and China administers the rest 20 percent of the region (Demchok district, the Shaksgam Valley, and the Aksai Chin region).

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

So, these three sources say that China administers "Demchok district", contradicting The Washington Post, which said that India administers it.

In either case, the mention need only be made in the China sentence, not India or Pakistan. I suggest that we add "a portion of the Demchok region" to the China sentence, and remove the offending Demchok mention in the India sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not the first time that we have conflicting sources on this conflict hah! One wonders if this will ever be resolved.

I agree with your suggestion, and I’ll change that now and add it to the body in a bit.

My secondary proposal (unrelated to Demchok) was to more directly state that India claims the entirety of the region, Pakistan claimed the entirety until 1963 when it relinquished claims of the current Chinese claims, and China claims XYZ. This can be done in three separate sentences if one is too long. It’s currently stated in one sentence:

Both India and Pakistan claimed the entirety of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, although Pakistan has recognized Chinese sovereignty over the Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin since 1963.

It’s a bit indirect (really only by vague implication) in saying who claims (separate from administers) what in the modern conflict. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my absence during this discussion but I am glad that a resolution has been agreed upon. I appreciate that MarkH21 was able to better the article as such.Somenolife (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and mentioned Demchok under China's claim to parts of Kashmir as per MarkH21's suggestion.Somenolife (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Making it flow correctly

I spent a lot of time collection all the information and the references and editing the Kashmir conflict page so that it flow correctly with all the references. Look at the changes that I made that MarkH21 reverted and let me know if there is anything you need me to change. Just let me know what is wrong with my changes and I will change those areas. Thanks Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Replicating the explanation from my talk page, where you also asked.

Massive changes should be explained (at the very least with edit summaries, and even more helpful is the talk page). It's also helpful to break your large changes down into smaller edits, so you can more clearly explain your edits and so other editors can review your work and see what has been changed.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, your changes broke the lead by bringing "Early history" as a subsection of the lead. There are also some other evident issues, like the unreferenced sentence about the 1684 and 1842 treaties. You also trimmed a lot of the lead; why? There are also some places where you place too many citations, in some places the footnote links take up half of a line!

— MarkH₂₁^talk 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 thanks for comming back to me. I tried to add links to pre 1947 history of Jammu and Kashmir wikipedia pages that impact on the Kashmir Conflict, amongst them were the Treaty of Tingmosgang in 1684 and the Treaty of Chushul pages in wikipedia. I just tried to add them on the page, but you are right it was in the wrong place to add them. I am happy to remove those links. MarkH21 I am happy with that. MarkH21 I tried to make the changes in small chunks but it did not work. The change was to make it flow through the history of the conflict, in chronological order and to add links to the treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions, that went with those events. When I tried to do it in small bits, it did not read correctly, since I had to move the order of the text. Your comment "your changes broke the lead by bringing "Early history" as a subsection of the lead." I tried to make it flow in chronological order, but you are welcome to make the changes you want. Just separate the "Lead" from the "Early history". Once people have suggested any changes, the page could be unreverted and I will make those changes. They could also make changes them selves after it is rereverted.Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with the revert. This article is already quite huge and discusses a number of intricate details of a long-running conflict. There should be no huge additions to the article unless absolutely essential.

Secondly, Johnleeds1, I am afraid your content is really poorly organised, with about half a dozen citations for each sentence, no page numbers, no links, and no indication of how they support your content. Let us look at this addition, for example:

While since 1947 the Kashmiris have wanted an election for them to decide their own future, as granted to them under the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 47 and 39 and agreed to by both India and Pakistan at the time. They want the right to choose if they want to remain independant like before 1947 or if they want join India or Pakistan

Are you claiming that each one of those 6 citations supports the statement made here? Can you provide page numbers and quotations that support these sentiments? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3 thanks for the feedback. It's very useful. Kautilya3 I will change the citations where necessary and add the page numbers and the quotations that support these sentiments. I agree there are too many citations and if you want I will reduce them to make it easier to read.

While since 1947 the Kashmiris have wanted an election for them to decide their own future, as granted to them under the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 47 and 39 and agreed to by both India and Pakistan at the time. They want the right to choose if they want to remain independant like before 1947 or if they want join India or Pakistan

I only added this in there because if you look at the rest of the page, around half of the page is about protests. Kautilya3 its just a summary. Kautilya3 which bit of this statement do you disagree with and do you want changing. I could change it for you, thats fine. In terms of the length, most of it is just references and links to other wikipedia pages. The references make it appear as if I added a lot of words. But when you see it on the page, it does not look that different in length. I will combine duplicated references and that will reduce it by many thousands of characters. Much of it is just moving text around to put it into chronological order so that I could link it to the treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions and link it to the other wikipedia pages. Kautilya3, people will change it anyway and I am happy for them to change it. The international treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions are critical and have interdependencies and that is why I had to put those parts into chronological order. Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I just gave this as an example. It is an example to illustrate how most of your writing is representing your own views (WP:OR), with WP:FAKE citations to make it appear as if it is based on reliable sources. This is not acceptable for Wikipedia. And, if you do this in contentious topics like Kashmir, you will get sanctioned. So, extreme care is warranted in addressing topics like this. You cannot go even one bit away from what the sources state.

Again, for illustration only, here are some of the specific problems with your paragraph above:

• No scholar can claim to know for sure what the "Kashmiris" want. There are a lot of people in Kashmir and a lot of view points.
• Kashmiris are not the only people in the state. There are also Jammuites and Ladakhis, leave alone other people in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
• Plebiscite (what you call "election") was promised for the whole of the princely state, not just to Kashmiris.
• And that plebiscite offer was made as a way of dispute resolution with Pakistan, not as a way of giving "rights" to Kashmiris.
• The UN resolutions also address dispute resolution with Pakistan and do not mention any "rights". Nor was there any mention of "independence" or "deciding future".
• The UN resolutions also had preconditions for Pakistan to fulfil before there would be plebiscite. Pakistan was reluctant to fulfil them.
• No scholar has ever said that Kashmir was "independent" before 1947, whereas you seem to take it for granted that it was independent.

If there are so many problems with one little paragraph, you can imagine how many problems there would be in the thousands of bytes of text you are producing. None of us has the time or energy to sit and proof-read and police your writing. The only solution is for you to stay from Kashmir issues and edit other topics until you gain enough experience in writing Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 let me assure you I have more than enough knowledge of the Kashmir issue. Additionally I have been on wikipedia for a very long time. Kautilya3 there are many people who could proof-read. Wikipedia is public and anyone could correct things. I just don't want to argue, I want to be constructive and improve wikipedia and if you want references I could add them. Kautilya3 to keep you happy I will change it to this for you:

While since 1947 some people of the former princely state of Jammu And Kashmir have wanted a plebiscite for them to decide their own future, under the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 47 and 39 as agreed to by both India and Pakistan at the time.

I am afraid your "knowledge of the Kashmir issue" is of no use to Wikipedia. Wikipedia summarises scholarly knowledge. The fact that you are trying to put into Wikipedia your own knowledge is precisely the problem.

As a first step, I need you to provide the page numbers and quotations for this paragraph before we can discuss any further. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I want to be constructive and respectful, I did not want to argue with you. Kautilya3 I added the references and you said that there are too many character. Then you said: "None of us have the time or energy to sit and proof-read and police your writing. The only solution is for you to stay from Kashmir issues and edit other topics until you gain enough experience in writing Wikipedia content."

Wikipedia is public and anyone could proof read and edit content. When I mentioned that I do have knowledge of the Kashmir issue you said: "I am afraid your "knowledge of the Kashmir issue" is of no use to Wikipedia. Wikipedia summarises scholarly knowledge. The fact that you are trying to put into Wikipedia your own knowledge is precisely the problem."

Kautilya3 there are too many contraditions in your statements.

Much of what I have added is already on this page, I just moved it around so that it flows in chronological order and added the references.

I think the real reason why you oppose people adding content to this page is because of the following statement on your talk page where you said:

As for my personal views, I don't see any of the problems you see, except the latest unilateral revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. And, that is a battle to be fought in the Supreme Court of India, not on Wikipedia pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats like saying there is no conflict is Jammu and Kashmir and therefore this whole page and this whole section on the Kashmir Conflict should not exist. Only the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir page should exist. May be you should watch the news and read this page, it shows you the problems in Jammu and Kashmir. You get irrated by the very mention of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The international treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions are already on wikipedia. I am just putting them into chronological order, so that people could see the interdependencies and we could link to the different pages on Wikipedia. I spent months going through this and you don't even let me make changes. I have been on wikipedia for a very long time and if everyone had this attitute, Wikipedia would not even exist. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Being respectful is nice, but you would have shown respect if you had done what I have asked you to twice already. Since you have been ignoring it, I have put it in bold now. These are required as per Wikipedia requirements of verifiability and neutral point of view. Nothing can proceed here until you do so. Also, I would advise you not to throw WP:aspersions at other editors and, instead, focus on content and sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 thanks for the feedback, I will give time for other people to comment and then change it as you said Johnleeds1 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am in the middle of making the changes requested Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: I’m not sure you’ve fully understood the comments here. It wasn’t a matter of just fix the few mentioned examples and it’s good to go. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 I am in the middle of making the changes I need a few hours. I had to revert it so that I could make the changes. Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You can use your sandbox at User:Johnleeds1/sandbox or create User:Johnleeds1/Kashmir conflict if you need a space to work on a draft and demonstrate what you’re trying to do. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Earlier RegentsPark suggested that I should make smaller changes at a time. So that people could see what has changed. Its a good idea and I will do it like that. Most of the changes are just links to existing wikipedia pages and moving the text around, so that it is in cronological order. Doing it like that will be easier. Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not move anything around. Whatever you would like to add, please propose here first in small paragraphs and obtain feedback. Your writing does not generally meet WP:V and WP:NPOV criteria (especially WP:DUE and WP:WEIHT). Unless you make an effort to improve that, you are wasting your time here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Timeline

The problem with this article is that the time lines are wrong, it says:

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well as Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an "impartial reference to the will of the people". Jinnah rejected the offer. According to Indian scholar A. G. Noorani, Jinnah ended up squandering his leverage

Look at Annexation of Hyderabad. Operation Polo in Hyderabad occurred in September 1948.

There was a political movements in Jammu and Kashmir against Dogra Rule before 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movements_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)

Then there was the 1947 Poonch rebellion from the spring 1947 with 60,000 Muslims from the Poonch and Mirpur districts enrolled in the British Indian Army returning from the Second World War with their Arms and complaining about high taxes. There were even more in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy (There are 1.1 million people from Mirpur alone in the UK, the children of these people)

11 August 1947 prime minister Ram Chandra Kak was dismissed

September 1948 Operation Polo in Hyderabad occurred

We need to improve the time lines so that we could link to the other pages in Wikipedia on Jammu and Kashmir.

It does not have to be as detailed as the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict page but atleast make the two more consistent so that we could put links between them so that people could gain further details if they wish. Additionally we need to look into areas where there are inconsistencies with the dates.

The Jammu Kashmir State Forces page needs to be reinstated to show the pre 1947 "Jammu Kashmir State Forces" history. A whole chunk of the history is missing. They fought in the First World War and the Second world war and later split and then fought each other in 1947 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948

There is lot of literature on their service in the First World War and the Second world war. The Early campaigns section in Imperial Service Troops and 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade (the Kashmir Imperial Service Lancers) has some information. But the main page for the Jammu Kashmir State Forces in no longer there. They also included the 1st Kashmir Pack Battery and the 1st Kashmir Imperial Service Rifles

They are shown in many books like The Indian Army in World War I, 1914-1918 By Ian Cardozo

British Paramountcy in Kashmir, 1876-1894 By Madhvi Yasin page 131

They are even mentioned in the National Archive in the UK https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4557737 https://www.dailyo.in/politics/world-war-i-dogra-regiment-sikh-battalion-jammu-and-kashmir/story/1/7215.html

It will be easier making small changes.

Johnleeds1 (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please raise one issue at a time, and avoid writing walls of text. The passage you have contested has a reliable source. If you don't have access to the source, that doesn't mean you can call it "wrong". Here is a description of the content from a book review:

The study further argues that Jinnah refused the best option for resolution offered by Mountbatten on November 1, 1947. This offer entailed a “Jinnah plebiscite in all the three states- Kashmir, Junagarh and Hyderabad.” However, Jinnah turned it down. Noorani comments, “So much for his commitment to democracy... He was more interested in the Nizam of Hyderabad.” Noorani underscores that Jinnah, due to his immense arrogance, not only mishandled Sheikh Abdullah - who was not willing to accede to India - but also supported the tribal raid, which rendered the Indian army’s entry into Kashmir on the request of Maharaja Hari Singh legitimate.

It is not the job of this article to study the accession issues in detail. Some of it is already in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and a separate article on Accession of Kashmir can be separated if necessary. A bit more about the Poonch Rebellion here is necessary but once again there is a dedicated article on it. Please feel free to create Jammu and Kashmir State Forces if you have interest in it. That is tangential to the topic at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 you are pushing totally bias content and removing anything that you disagree with on wikipedia, that does not reference the Supreme Court of India. The Kashmir Conflict was on going before The Supreme Court of India even came into existance, on 26 January 1950. You are living up to the statement that you made earlier on your talk page, where you said:

As for my personal views, I don't see any of the problems you see, except the latest unilateral revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. And, that is a battle to be fought in the Supreme Court of India, not on Wikipedia pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You and Anupam are pushing bias content in clear violation of verifiability and neutral point of view. You removed content on international treaties, like the Treaty of Lahore and the Treaty of Amritsar, Article 7 of the The Indian Independence Act 1947 and the UN resolutions arguing 'This article is already quite huge'. Yet in the section: Kashmiri views, you and Anupam added:

• Markandey Katju, an ethnic Kashmiri and former Justice of the Supreme Court of India, maintains that the secession of Kashmir would cause its economy to suffer, due to the fact that Kashmir's handicraft industry is dependent on buyers in other parts of India; Katju holds that the ultimate solution to the Kashmir conflict is the reunification of what is now Pakistan with India under a secular government.

The Supreme Court of India did not even exist before 26 January 1950. The references used are bias Indian newpaper articles, not neutral books, in clear violation of verifiability and of a neutral point of view. This whole addition is in clear violation of the neutral point of view. Before the 1940s the roads from what is now the Indian side of Kashmir went into the Pakistani side of Kashmir and into Punjab and the handy crafts were sold all around the world.

You removed content on the international treaties, the Treaty of Lahore and the Treaty of Amritsar, Article 7 of the The Indian Independence Act 1947 and the UN resolutions from many pages, that you disagree with, even though it was heavily referenced, just because you disagree with the UN resolutions, yet you add bias content in clear violation of verifiability and neutral point of view.

Its like copying some text from a British News paper in the 1930 saying "the secession of India from the British Empire would cause its economy to suffer, due to the fact that Indias handicraft industry is dependent on buyers in other parts of the British Empire. That the ultimate solution for the Indians is for India to be ruled by the British Empire" on the page Indian independence movement and then remove The Indian Independence Act 1947 text from that page because you disagree with it.

I am sure Ghandi would not be so happy with that :) Kautilya3 you are pushing totally bias content on wikipedia in clear violation of verifiability and neutral point of view and removing everyone elses content even when it is referenced. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: Isn’t the UN resolution already in Kashmir#UN mediation? If you specifically mean the “National stances” section, I suppose we could include a brief subsection on the UN as a major viewpoint (I previously removed this from a long section in the article; we would need to replace the reference for the second bullet):

• The United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 was passed by United Nations Security Council under chapter VI of UN Charter. Resolutions passed under Chapter VI of UN charter are considered non binding and have no mandatory enforceability as opposed to the resolutions passed under Chapter VII.
• On 24 January 1957 the UN Security Council reaffirmed the 1948 resolution.The Security Council, reaffirming its previous resolution to the effect, "that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of United Nations," further declared that any action taken by the Constituent Assembly formed in Kashmir " would not constitute disposition of the state in accordance with the above principles."

We should general be wary of length and being overly focused on small details for this long article though.

Could you point out which content about the Treaty of Lahore and Treaty of Amritsar that you want to include? — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 thanks for getting back to me. A lot of the text is already there, we just need to show how it all relates to each other from a legal perspective, so that the readers could see what is going on and why there is a dispute.

If you have a house, where you have an agreement with your neighbours, to pay them $1000 per year to use their swimming pool, then you don't want to be held liable for the $1000 after you sell the house.

Hence when the Indian Independence Act 1947 was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 it contained Article 7 which stated "with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse." This text is already on this page. The British government did not want to honour old agreements and be liable for the payment of compensation if they were taken to the International courts, after they had given away the asset. Therefore all the agreements including the Treaty of Lahore and Treaty of Amritsar lapsed. It was the Treaty of Lahore and the Treaty of Amritsar that gave authority to Harri Singh. With the lapse of these treaties all such powers and authority reverted to the sovereign authority, the people of the states. (Many of the conditions in the Treaty of Lahore were broken from the very start like "XV. The British Government will not exercise any interference in the internal administration of the Lahore State..." Infact the British Government took over Lahore soon after it signed this. Maharajah Dhuleep Singh was only 7 years old and under the control of the British Government when he had to sign this treaty and soon he was sent to the UK [1]). The ruler of the state of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan but the Government of India refused to accept this and the Indian army moved in and under this formula a plebiscite was held and it joined India .

Sylhet was in Assam but joined East Pakistan via the 1947 Sylhet referendum, under this formula. North-West Frontier Province joined Pakistan via 1947 North-West Frontier Province referendum, under this formula.

The state of Hyderabad was another state where the Nizam of Hyderabad was a Muslim and he declared Hyderabad an independent state as the third dominion, but the Government of India refused to accept this and launched a military operation named Operation Polo. Because they claimed that much of it's population was Hindu.

Consistent with this policy, the Kashmiri population also wanted the same choice or wanted to remain independent. Ram Chandra Kak the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir did not want to join India and his dismissal and arrest was a major event that triggered the Jammu and Kashmir State Forces to turn on Harri Singh and later fight against the Indian Army.

Here is the text of Mountbatten's letter dated 27 October, 1947 that is said to go with the instrument of accession where it also says:

Consistently with their policy that in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people.

Consistent with this policy, both India and Pakistan then agreed with United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 that mentioned that a plebiscite should be held in Jammu and Kashmir for the people to decide their own future. But due to mistrust and a desire by all the armies to hold land, none of the armies are willing to withdraw and the plebiscite was never held and the conflict continues to this day and now due to geopolitics more powers are involved and the people in the region are living in a battle zone. Their towns and villages are divided and they are dying every day along the line of control. Its very tragic. They all have nuclear weapons and there is constant conflict. Its the legal side that we need to bring out so that people could see what is going on. Much of the text is already there, it just needs to flow correctly Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

The Problems

The one problem that actually is in this article is that it is too long so we need to divide it let's see what we can do! XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly. I tagged the article as being too long and shortened it almost one year ago, but never got around to doing more. Much of the details in the existing sections can be further summarized. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

India-Pakistan Conflict can be mereged into the Timeline of Kashmir Conflict because they are the same articles. Then that part is done, we can let that remain "for further information check Timeline of the Kashmir Conflict" and it will be done. We can write a short summary of it in their just for the knowledge which I think will be Ok. What do you all say XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure that’s the right thing to do. The Timeline of Kashmir Conflict is just a timeline, and shouldn’t contain all of the details presented here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok Then we can summarixmze it a bit I will try to do it in sandbox and say what you think XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

According to me the best Idea will be to Make the India-Pakistan conflict a separate article. What do you think about it. XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Need to find another way out, Summarizing won't be able to decrease the size to enough that itay be readable. XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The conflict in Northern Ireland is similar. The Troubles page has an overview and then the events are listed in date order, making them easier to follow. I guess with long running conflicts, you will get lots of content. The Troubles page is also very long. Jammu and Kashmir is more complex because currently it is divided into 3 parts, under three different administrations.

Merging the "India–Pakistan conflict" and the "Internal conflict" sections and listing everything in date order may make more sense. For example the Political movements during the Dogra rule (1846–1947) later impacted the events in 1947. How different states like Junagadh and Hyderabad joined India or Pakistan also impacted the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The aligations around the rigging of the 1987 state elections led to the 1989 popular insurgency and militancy and later the 1999 conflict in Kargil. By dividing it into "India–Pakistan conflict" and the "Internal conflict" we are also duplicating some content. Put things in date order and then for each section we could have a summary and a link to the main article on that event, like we currently have with the sections:

1999 conflict in Kargil

Main article: Kargil War

and

Sino-Indian War

Main article: Sino-Indian War

etc

Things are also listed in date order in the Korean conflict page and the Vietnam War page.

Once things are in date order and make sense, to reduce the size of the article we could just remove the areas that are not related to the conflict and put them into other pages and link to them.

In the summary at the top explain why the conflict exists and the different parties involved in the conflict and what they are fighting for. Explain how the different states like the North-West Frontier Province, Junagadh and Hyderabad joined India or Pakistan and its Impact on Jammu And Kashmir. The relationships between the Treaty of Lahore and the Treaty of Amritsar, the Indian Independence Act 1947, United Nations Security Council Resolutions and their impact on the conflict. Johnleeds1 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If it is possible then please do!! XxPixel WarriorxX (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not possible. The best we can do is to make [[WP:In-text attribution|attributed statements]. It is also important to keep in mind that there are two conflicts: the India–Pakistan conflict (which is over accession/sovereignty) and the internal conflict (which is probably over autonomy, but increasingly tending towards separation). There is also a regional conflict (between the three regions: Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh), which has been subdued but it occasionally blows up. So there can't be a single set of reasons for the "conflict". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ordering things as a time line will be simpler in the long run or else we will have too many sections and sub sections with duplicate information like:

India–Pakistan conflict

India–China conflict

The word internal conflict is also misleading as it ignores the parts of Jammu and Kashmir administered by Pakistan and China. Therefore we may end up breaking this down further. Then within Ladakh there is Leh and Kargil where Kargil has more linkages with Kashmir too. There are a lot of interdependencies so it will become even more complex over time.

Its tragic that we associate the word "Kashmir" with "Conflict" these days, when for centuries "Kashmir" was associated with the word "Paradise". This area was a bridge between so many different civilisations. Jammu and Kashmir is where the people of the different civilisations inter married and the languages mixed and the people traded. And now we have Pakistan, India and China in conflict and the world powers involved. The line of control dividing their towns, villages and families. One thing in their favour is that the people of Jammu and Kashmir still have a deep sense of shared identity irrespective of their religions. So there is hope for peace. If peace is given a chance in Jammu and Kashmir, there is will peace in Asia. The contradition is that Pakistan, India and China want land and borders while the people share family and ties across these borders. At the same time there is firing across the LOC. Its a struggle between Love and Hate and life and death, very tragic:) Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

A good story and it is eaningful but still I am going to Cut things out and Remould sentences Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(I am Only XxPixel WarriorxX, Tylertoney Dude Perfect and Pixel Lupus, it is just to eliminate any doubt later and all the ID's are Legitimate accounts)Now no more basic remoulding U am going to cut things from the first description as they are already Mentioned and Described below intl the columns. Pixel Lupus (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

After the partition of India and a rebellion in the western districts of the state, Pakistani tribal militias invaded Kashmir, leading the Hindu ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to join India[12] and starting the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 which ended with a UN-mediated ceasefire along a line that was eventually named the Line of Control.[13][14] After further fighting in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the Simla Agreement formally established the Line of Control between the two nations' controlled territories.[15][16] In 1999, armed conflict between India and Pakistan broke out again in the Kargil War over the Kargil district.[17].

Don't you all think that this thing is already mentioned somewhere in the article and is just a duplicate in the first Description. Pixel Lupus (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

UN official maps for the region

We should be using the official UN maps for this area. None of the other maps have ever been agreed to by anyone.

https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf Johnleeds1 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not anybody's agreement with it.

In any case, what map are you complaining about? And what problem do you see with it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Shubh8090 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian army never violated any human rights of kashmiris actually some of the extremist islamic organisations are responsible for the current situation of kashmir they werre the only reason for the exodus of the kashmiri hindus they were raped murdered executed by jihadis after all that happened india didn't wage war against them and your page portray them as rapists!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The accusations against the Indian army are just accusations.. So in the absence of evidence... That is fool proof evidence.. Laying out such a statement in a platform like Wikipedia is not something that is advisable. Mallus pride (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir

I see that this content has been added and deleted a few times. I believe that this content does not belong in this article because no connection to the "Kashmir conflict" has been established. People who would like to see this included need to explain their reasons here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Both countries have been accused of committing atrocities on the people of their respected controlled parts of Kashmir.

Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan, have been a partial issue, ranging from forced disappearances, claimed torture to political repression and electoral fraud and suppression of freedom of speech. According to the human rights commission of Pakistan, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) carries out extensive surveillance operations on the press and pro independence groups, they have carried out arbitrary arrests in which people have been tortured and several have died.

References

@Asmitghosh3 and Wareon:, Neither of you has engaged in discussion on this issue, despite edit warring [2], [3], [4].

Pinging RegentsPark for arbitration enforcement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pardon for the editing feud. Waved a fair representation of both sides. Nothing to hide. Totally apolitical stand. If needed willing to undo the added content. Support neutrality. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you should undo your addition, and achieve WP:CONSENSUS here for its inclusion. The WP:BURDEN for including new content is always on those who want to include it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya Then don't say I was edit warring after dispute was raised here. I was waiting for SPI results [5] and Islam Treasure 66 has been blocked for socking. Forced disappearances, suppression of freedom and arrests+tortures leading to deaths in Pakistan controlled Kashmir are related with the conflict. It makes absolutely zero sense to remove it. User:Asmitghosh3 is also in favor to include it back. Wareon (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of Kashmir is highly political. As Wikipedia editor we must stay neutral and bring out the balance. Nevertheless I don't support misinformation and fake news. Balancing doesn't mean to compare but to take away what looks like propaganda. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The page has again been reverted back without discussion. The undoing of the Pakistan part makes the India appear as sole perpetrator of human right abuse. We need to maintain the neutrality otherwise it will become a mouthpiece of certain group. I request permission to change the content. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pages are always reverted back to WP:STATUSQUO when there are content disputes. The WP:BURDEN for inclusion rests on those want propose new content.

You haven't yet provided an answer to my original question. How is this content related to "Kashmir conflict"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, Azad Kashmir is a disputed territory and so actions taken by the Pakistani government there are intrinsically a part of the Kashmir conflict, especially with reference to enforced disappearances.

For a name, the Pakistani government has done a lot to crush the separatist movement for a free Balawaristan (historical name of Gilgit-Baltistan).[6] Kashmiri separatist leader Sardar Arif Shahid, who advocated the independence of Pakistani-administered Kashmir from Pakistan's rule, was also killed by Pakistani Army and the ISI.[7] This is why I say that edits by Asmitghosh3 are not exactly unrelated to the subject, but directly related to Kashmir conflict. Wareon (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I presume I got an answer to the original question. If the atrocities of Indian state in form of military is done on Kashmir, then it is part of Kashmir conflict due to the it being on Kashmiri people. The Pakistani ISI atrocities also stand on same ground. Atrocities is not what you expect in peace times but is a well known face of any impeding conflict. Asmitghosh3 (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding to Asmitghosh3 first, Wikipedia policies do not allow us (or require us) to claim an equivalence between any two topics or subtopics. See WP:False balance. Moreover, you inserted the new paragraph in between the discussion of insurgency in Indian Kashmir and the abuses in Indian Kashmir, thereby breaking their continuity and relationship. This represents a WP:NOTHERE behaviour and can invite sanctions.

In response to Wareon, the new contribution does not cite any source on Kashmir conflict that mentions the abuses in AJK as a "partial issue". It is his own WP:OR. Unless you guys provide a source that discusses the abuses in the context of Kashmir conflict, nothing further can be done here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2019 Media Blackout

Not sure if it belongs in this article, but I think it would probably be worth mentioning the media blackout that was imposed on the region by India back in August 2019 that has not yet been fully ended. I'm sure more can be found about it, but here is one BBC article addressing it https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51117025

--108.45.161.144 (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There appears to already be a wikipedia article about this media blackout - probably this article could just link to that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Jammu_and_Kashmir_lockdown

--108.45.161.144 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

UN Resolutions

Jammu and Kashmir is subject to the UN security council resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307

As you could see from the UN security council resolution 98 http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98

Both the government of India and Pakistan accepted that the question of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

This is not my point of view, it is what was agreed to by both the Governments of India and Pakistan with the UN.

The UN asked both of them to reduce their forces http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/98 also says:

4. Urges the Governments of India and Pakistan to enter into immediate negotiations under the auspices of the Unites Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in order to reach agreement on the specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of the period of demilitarization, this number to be between 3000 to 6000 armed forces remaining on the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line and between 12,00 and 18000 armed forces remaining on the Indian side of the ceasefire line...

I did not write these; these are the official UN security council resolutions on this area. This issue has been with the united nations since 1947. China, India and Pakistan have been discussing this issue at the UN for years. And there is another party to this, the people of Jammu and Kashmir who are being killed every day on the Line of Control and the the UN security council resolutions refer to them.

There were issues that led to these UN security council resolutions that asked for a plebiscite.

The Kashmir conflict started as a campaign by the Kashmiri Hindus, Muslims and the Sikhs against being sold into slavery in 1846 by the East India company. They deeply resented this. You could see books on it from a long time ago like Cashmere Misgovernment by Robert Thorp from 1868

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dNPFmgEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-S8xyn1cgY

Article 6 of the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) provides that: Maharajah Gulab Singh engages for himself and heirs to join, with the whole of his Military Forces, the British troops when employed within the hills or in the territories adjoining his possessions. So some of these taxes were used to fund the army that was used to help the British. But the Kashmiris also fought in the First and Second World war too.

Maharaja Harri Singhs great grandfather Gulab Singh (a Dogra) betrayed the Sikhs (whom he worked for) in the Anglo-Sikh war (1845 & 1846). Therefore the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh (Sikh) was kidnapped and forced to sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave his ally Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India company https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sgi2PMGgZM . In other such cases the ICJ has stated that there "can be little doubt as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void." The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) and the treaty of Lahore also violated the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 that abolished slavery in the British Empire.

By not joining the dominions of India or Pakistan by August 15 1947 Jammu and Kashmir was totally independent. While India became a dominions of the British Empire not independent on August 15th 1947 Read the Indian Independence Act 1947 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf

Harri Singhs powers totally lapsed after the Treaty of Amritsar lapsed under Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 before the treaty of accession. All powers reverted to the people hence the call for the plebiscite under UN resolutions 91, 98, 96, 80, 47, 38, 39, 51, 122, 123, 126, 307 as only they could decide.

Article 7 of the Indian Independence Act 1947 provides that with the lapse of His Majestys suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferances will lapse. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf (why keep the liabilities if you are giving away the assets). This broke the treaty of Amritsar that gave authority to Mahraja Harri Singh

In 1948 Junagadh and Hydrabad were also independent in South Asia. The ruler of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan, but then the Indian Army invaded and under this formula a plebiscite was held there too for it to join India. Hydrabad was invaded by the Indian Army Sept 1948 (Operation Polo).

These are the UN maps for Jammu and Kashmir:

https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf ::::https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf Jammu and ::::Kashmir is still shown as a distinct entity on the official UN Maps --Johnleeds1 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: I am going to repeat what I asked of you at Talk:2020 China-India skirmishes#This area is Jammu and Kashmir. Please clarify:

• What you want to change in this WP article and where in the article those changes should be made. Please be specific!
• Why these changes are appropriate.
• What reliable sources (ideally not primary documents from the UN / old government documents) support the change. For example, academic secondary sources that directly support what you propose to add.

Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 Thanks for getting back to me. Its much appreciated. I will get everything together and do these things. Thanks Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

think this text to long

i think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.20.68.18 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"History of the Kashmir conflict" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of the Kashmir conflict. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#History of the Kashmir conflict until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead revisions reverted

zeex.rice, to amplify the edit summary in my revert, please ensure that you cleanly separate any "reverts" you do, any copy-editing and all other substantive changes. And, avoid pointless changes, e.g., you changed "territorial conflict" to "territorial dispute", even though both the terms refer to the same page. What is the point of that?

The introduction of Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan in the introductory paragraph is highly WP:UNDUE. Do you know of any high-level discussions of the Kashmir conflict that refer to the countries by those terms? A lead is written with a lot more care than mere WP:Verifiability. WP:WEIGHT is of primary importance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: It looks like part of zeex.rice's edit was reverting this unexplained change by another editor, which your revert reinstated. The parts of the article and cited refs definitely do not say anything like human rights abuses against Kashmiri terrorist, so I'm restoring the original wording for that specific part. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks. It is a pity to get reverted after all the work one does. Maybe we should all learn to write edit summaries first before doing the edits themselves. That way, we can keep things apart. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict data in % (Percentage)

If someone want to know how the controlled area's precentage of three different countries in kashmir i.e of India, China and pakistan is calculated than here it is, Area of Jammu and Kashmir total (as full Princely State) = 222,236 sq.km (100%) /// Area controlled by India, Ladakh (UT)= 59,146 sq.km and J&K (UT) = 42,241 sq.km So in total 101,387 sq.km now in %, = (101,387÷222,236) × 100% so by caluclating that India controls 45.36%, Similary, China controls aksai chin = 38,850 sq.km and Shaksgam valley = 5,180 sq.km so in total 44,030 sq.km now in % = (44,030÷222,236) × 100% so by calculating that china controls 19.81%, for pakistan (100%-45.36%-19.81%)=34.83%, So the pakistan percentage (%) of control is just obtained by subtracting the Chinese controlled and Indian controlled kashmir percentage i.e remaning percentage (%) is controlled by pakistan i.e 34.83% And the places I mentioned have areas given in wikipedia pages you can yourself cross check. So in aproximate India controls ~45%, china controls ~20% and pakistan controls ~35%... and symbol (~=nearly or approximately)..Swtadi143 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Swtadi143: That sentence in the lead is already cited to sources giving percentages. The most recent of the refs in that line gives:

Today, India administers approximately 43 percent of the region (Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier); Pakistan administers approximately 37 percent of the region (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit- Baltistan); and China administers the rest 20 percent of the region (Demchok district, the Shaksgam Valley, and the Aksai Chin region).
— Ruiz Estrada, Mario Arturo; Koutronas, Evangelos; Khan, Alam; Angathevar, Baskaran (2018). "Economic Dynamics of Territorial Military Conflicts: The Case of Kashmir". Journal of Strategic Studies. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3102745. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 133523552.

We might as well use that rather than compute it ourselves (which is sort of WP:OR). Alternatively, we can use the other cited refs as well. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we probably need to one of the other cited refs rather than the one I quoted; it does not seem to actually have been published in the Journal of Strategic Studies (no results). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

In the "Chinese view" section, please change "Trans Karakoram Tract" to "Trans-Karakoram Tract" and remove the link. It's hyphenated at two other places in the article, so usage should be consistent, and it's linked in both places, so it doesn't need to be overlinked. 64.203.186.66 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In a long article, ther is no harm in linking at multiple places. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

"India controls approximately 45% of the land area of the region that includes Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, most of Ladakh, the Siachen Glacier[3] and 70% of its population; ..." Missing a comma or just make the "its" less ambiguous? as it is the implies that India "controls" 70% of its own population which is surely not intended here.

Should be something like: "India controls approximately 45% of the land area (...), i.e. 70% of the total population of the region" -- of Kashmir, not India itself. 77.183.22.54 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the missing comma, but the number of commas in that sentence is extra-ordinary, presumably the result of numerous WP:Lead fixation edits inserting their favourite POV into that sentence and hammering it down with a million citations. I am surprised you even managed to read it in full. It needs major clean-up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Ankit Love's claim to be the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir in United Kingdom politics

User:Kautilya3 I do not feel the content I had added here was original research or violation of wikipedia's neutral point of view, as you have written in my talk section after deleting it from this article. Can you please be more specific why you feel it was in violation of NPOV or original research? As I would like to learn too, from a more experienced editor, if I have made an error that I still am not aware off in this context and thus improve my editing in the future. The text was as follows, and all sourced I believe as published in major news publications: Huffpost, Indian Express and Hindustan Times. Did you read these news articles? As the following that I had written was all reported in these news sources, so can you kindly make me aware what exactly in this text you feel was in violation of wikipedia policies, as I am struggling to understand it myself. Thank you in advance.

Ankit Love, son of Bhim Singh the founder of Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, claimed to be the "Emperor (Maharaja) of the Sovereign State of Jammu and Kashmir" when he was candidate in the 2016 London Mayoral Election, and again in the 2016 Richmond Park by-election for the United Kingdom parliament. Death Star Central (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

For further ease, and to save you time and effort in looking back, these are the links to the news sources that were referenced to write that above text. HuffPost, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and CityAM . Death Star Central (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

My edit summary was Completely WP:UNDUE; what does this have to do with the Kashmir conflict?. You have said nothing about this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see your edit summary now. Thank you very much for making me aware of that too, as perviously I had only gone by the notification about your comments on my talk page titled April 2021, where you had mentioned "novel syntheses" and "own personal analysis" as reasons for deletion. Which I would still like to understand better specifically in regards to the text I had written, as I believe all that content was in the sources referenced.

1.) I believe the content above to be fitting for this article under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight that you have mentioned and which states:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

And also further notes "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."

My understanding by these guidelines is that it is the content in the sources that matters, not the later analysis of it by editors or public, and how prominent the subject is in the actual article being referenced. Where in this instance the subject and topic at discussion are the feature in the above linked sources. Please do correct me if I am mistaken here, and please elaborate further why you believe my edit was WP:UNDUE if I have missed something. I would love to learn your perspective, and if you can quote the exact part of the guidelines that you refer too for deleting it, so I may learn better if I have made an omission. As I am confused, and don't understand how this would apply here, and so would be most grateful for you to give me a deeper explanation as you seem very experienced, certain and sure. And I may thus learn better and improve my editing in the future. I am all about self-improvement! :)

2.) Would you not say that this information applies to the Kashmir conflict as it is a claim made to the sovereignty of a disputed territory, and reported in the news internationally? Where as the entire Kashmir conflict itself arises from an internationally disputed claims. I would say it would not be about editors judging whether the claim was true or not or even if it was popular or not, but rather the fact that it was reported and featured in prominent news sources internationally. So especially in regards to the Kashmir conflict, I feel it should be included here, and especially as there appears to be no other such claims made to this title and territory of Maharaja in a sovereign sense that I could find reported in the news apart from the one in regards to Love. Also in the news articles his claim to the territory comes as a result of the conflict directly, and with a desire to end this long and disputed ongoing conflict too. There are several other news sources I have found too that support this, including Kashmir Life which appears to be one of the most popular magazines in Kashmir. Apologies for the length of this note, but I am sincerely trying to understand your point of view, so can you please expand and kindly give further explanation on why you feel what I had written has nothing to do with the Kashmir conflict? As, personally I had thought it was evident by the news sources, and background that the content was evidently all about the conflict. Apologies for the length of this note, but I would be most most grateful if you could give more of an explanation and clarification too, as your previous answer has still has left me confused, and after all this is a confusing conflict not yet resolved for over 70 years! Death Star Central (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to also write the reply to your question you asked on my talk page here, "Did your sources put this in a "Kashmir conflict" context?" to which my reply was " Why else would the sources report a claim to sovereignty if there was no relation to conflict? There are many sources on this story, here is one other that is perhaps more explicit in reference to conflict in CatchNews which reports the following "Love claims to be the \'exiled Emperor of Jammu and Kashmir\'He wants to get his princely state out of the clutches of \'India and Pakistan\'s illegal occupation\'" I believe that is a quite a clear reference to conflict." May I also please request we keep the discussion to just this talk page for more ease, and better organization? Thank you. Death Star Central (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Catch News is not a high-quality mainstream news source. We cannot give too much weight to what it prints. Moreover, it only reported what this gentleman said, a WP:PRIMARY source material. This stuff does not belong here. You are welcome to take it to WP:NPOVN if you disagree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict as potential Nuclear war that would destroy Earth's ozone layer and kill over 2 billion people in global famine

@User:Kautilya3 Why have you deleted the text I wrote in bold in the first line of the introduction here as follows:

"The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict over the Kashmir region, primarily between India and Pakistan, with China playing a third-party role, that could escalate to nuclear war which would destroy the Earth's ozone layer, cause a global nuclear winter, and according to Noble peace prize winning IPPNW would "end human civilization" in an atomic apocalypse killing over 2 billion people from global famine."

I thought this was quite well sourced with high quality references. Can you please explain in more detail why you feel that it violates MOS:LEAD and WP:UNDUE? Because I don't understand how that information violates the guidelines. I can see clearly you have a lot more experience as a wikipedia editor than I do, so I would also appreciate if you can give a more detailed explanation. I know it takes time to write longer, but as this is collaborative project I would be grateful to know your deeper insights. So I can understand better and improve my future edits by wikipedia rules. As presently I feel this completely fits the spirit of wikipedia from my understanding of notability, as surely nothing in the world is more important than the possibility of a globally apocalyptic nuclear war that could end human civilization according to a Noble peace prize winning body? So don't you feel too that this information which was published in numerous reliable sources must to be added to this article? What else could be more important for the world and reader to know than this? Death Star Central (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, espeically WP:WEIGHT.

The way to write an article on Kashmir conflict is to consult a wide range of sources that deal with the Kashmir conflict and summarise their most salient points. It is not for you to decide for yourself what the most salient points are and then stich together random sources to support your POV. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

Please remove

although there have been military courts-martial held

and add

although military courts-martial have been held

Thank you. 2600:1003:B847:A823:E9DF:460B:FB61:31FE (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done GameTriangle (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations, references and links

I will be formatting citations and adding/removing citation and reference details and information. I do not intend to make changes to the text at this stage. I may place some simple edits here with reasoning such as removal of links in "External links". I intend to take this up in order, that is, go from citation 1 and head towards 535. DTM (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Only if you are going to work with the Wikisource. If you use the automated tools, they add a lot of junk fields like access-date, language etc., and also don't seem able to deal with sfnref's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Access-date is a junk field, in all cases? DTM (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not in all cases, but the tools seem to add them in all cases. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This approach, solely following this approach, of fixing references without addressing the text isn't working for me with this article. So I am going to combine it with addressing certain aspects of the text itself. It is unsaid that major edits, and even some minor edits, to this article need simultaneous commentary and discussion on the talk page. DTM (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Query regarding accession 'proviso'

With regard to this line– While the Government of India accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a "reference to the people" after the state is cleared of the invaders, since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live."; it was a provisional accession. What is the nature of this proviso? The references used mention it, but I can't make out its form. It isn't in the text of the Instrument of Accession. Was it the verbal statements that surrounded this at the time? Are the letters being referred to? A note somewhere in the columns? DTM (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It is in Lord Mountbatten's reply to the Maharaja's letter. According to A. G. Noorani, all the communications written and signed at the same time as the formal documents, have an impact on the meaning of the documents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

[Gandhi, during his visit to Kashmir on 1 August 1947] reiterated his belief that, the Princes being the creation of British imperialism and the British having quitted India, the people in the States were now their own masters, and the Kashmiris must therefore decide, without any coercion or show of it from within or without, to which Dominion it should belong. The rule was of universal application.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Ongoing edits

• Chenab formula: This is placed under #21st century developments (2 locations) and #National stances. A long description of the formula is maintained at one location; and shorter mentions at two others. Expansion of this is left. Chenab formula or Proposed solutions to the Kashmir conflict or as a subsection of 'Peacebuilding in JK' can be considered. DTM (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Statistics: A new section. All general statements scattered in the article related to deaths— "43,000 people have been killed", "In 2008, 85 security personnel died compared to 613 in 2001", "800 militants were active" — will be shifted here. This will also allow easy removal of duplicate content. Statistics can then be chronologically summarised, sorting out date issues, and gaps filled. This does not cover section specific statistics which will remain where they are. DTM (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Some general observations related to the article will affect my future edits- One is that general history has to be taken out of this article without losing out on context. Some content groupings that are seen include those related to elections. DTM (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Amarnath: The only mention of this in the article is the 2008 Amarnath land transfer controversy. There is no other mention of the numerous related attacks etc. This topic needs balancing within the article. DTM (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• LOC firing: There are two types of narratives. One is that LOC firing has been a continuous happening over many years with periods of ceasefire. Other narratives pick out one particular episode due to newsworthy/encyclopaedia-worthy features such as more deaths than usual, and talk of it in detail. The section #2014 (In October 2014, Indian and Pakistani troops traded LOC gunfire ... were killed in three nights of fighting) is an example of this. But it is the only mention. Both aspects, including the long term one, need to be elucidated. (related article revision during this edit) DTM (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Plebiscite/referendum & self-determination: (edit revision) Some observations— the word 'plebiscite' has been used 98 times, 'referendum' 5 times and 'self-determination' 14 times. Multiple sections in this article cover this— #UN mediation, #Dixon Plan, #Nehru's plebiscite offer, #Autonomy and plebiscite (1947–1953), #Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 etc. There are also linked articles which cover aspects of this in detail: United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute. This can be understood as- Discussion of referendum/plebiscite before UN and Discussion of referendum/plebiscite after UN. Other observations worked on-

1. Nehru's plebiscite offer- This sub-header "Nehru's plebiscite offer" needs a title change. "Nehru's plebiscite offer" needs to be elucidated chronologically keeping in mind the date 2 November 1947 and very brief mention of the sub-continents prior discourse with this topic for context— (30 September 1947: Nehru proposed using plebiscite as a means of settling disputes regarding princely states. It was discussed in the Indian Cabinet ref). Nehru's plebiscite offer can go into detail, which while including existing UN stuff, can include a lot more background context, and take up this topic in a cleaner fashion.
2. Dixon Plan- This subsection in this article needs to be considered with reference to "UN_mediation_of_the_Kashmir_dispute#Dixon_mission".
3. Related opinions need to be compressed.
4. Looking at this more microscopically— India sought resolution of the issue at the UN Security Council. These exact words have been used in UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute. Is this summarization alright? DTM (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
5. This ends with "Contemporary views on UN resolutions" DTM (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I am afraid all the old stuff prior to 1965 is an incredibly contentious minefield, that can't be touched without thorough research. "Nehru's plebiscite offer" refers to the specific offer made in 1954, which was quite different from the UN resolution 47. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, The sub header is still confusing (subjective?). The other changes mentioned above still stand, (in the midst of a "minefield"[?]). Further edits are always open to discussion and reverting etc as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
• Since you think this seems a minefield, the proposed paragraphs can be placed here for observation and good collaboration practices. Thank you for your comment. DTM (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is confusing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, it would be helpful if you can link to the sections you are talking about, like Kashmir conflict#Nehru's plebiscite offer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

"Kashmir and plebiscite#History" is a start, a summary, aiming to cover this aspect of the dispute. DTM (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This article has been merged under a new section Kashmir conflict#Political and legal status. DTM (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Condensing/expanding related to opinion polls and surveys

With regard to this - A 2002 Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) survey, on the basis of 850 interviews, found that within Indian-administered Kashmir, 61% of respondents said they felt they would be better off as Indian citizens, with 33% saying that they did not know, and the remaining 6% favouring Pakistani citizenship. However, this support for India was mainly in the Ladakh and Jammu regions, not the Kashmir Valley, where only 9% of the respondents said that they would be better off with India.[429][neutrality is disputed] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in New Delhi involving around 400 people, 87% of respondents in the Kashmir Valley prefer independence over union with India or Pakistan.[430] A survey by Chatham House, on the basis of 3,774 face-to face interviews in both Indian and Pakistani administered Kashmir, found that support for independence stood at 43% and 44% respectively.[431]
Proposed action-

1. This could be reduced to a single line - Opinion polls and surveys have tried to ascertain the views of Kashmiris with regard to their future.
2. OR this could be expanded into a new section/sub section titled "Opinion polls and surveys" and more opinion polls and surveys added. DTM (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The MORI poll should be simply deleted. How is it possible for 61% to favour India if only 9% of Kashmiris favour India? The rest can stay but I don't see why it needs to be a separate section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The Chatham House Survey needs to stay. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Kashmir under Modi Govt.

As struggle for independence of Kashmir has continued under all govts of india.But when BJP came to power with very high majority after 2019 general elections of India,they abrogated Article370 democratically, and imposed curfew all over J&K to crush the reaction of people.All activists, politicians, seperatists were arrested.Mobile phone networks were barred.Also J&K and Ladakh were seperated and made them two union terretories. No one could speak about it. There was not given the right to speak against govt which is a democratic right of a citizen. Democracy doesn't overall existed in J&K. Without any reason J&K was demoted to a union territory from a state.Fundamental rights of citizens were violated. SK AATIF UL REYAZ (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Percentage area wise control of Kashmir

Plz correct as follow India 45% Pakistan 35% China 20% 39.50.138.19 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The total percentage of areas occupied by India, Pakistan and China add up to 110%. Please correct the same based on validated data. Allan.barrows (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Please remove China as third party , official third party involves acceptance by both parties and India has never changed or accepted any third party intervention into Kashmir conflict 69.14.22.169 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done China appears to be sourced. If you think that the sources are being misinterpreted or that they are deficient in some other way, please initiate a consensus forming discussion on this talk page.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What A Mess The Opening Summary Is?

This article starts out with the premise that chaos makes sense. The Opening Summary needs to be written lucidly by someone with reasonably full knowledge of the history. What are the dates for the Kashmir Conflict? Shouldn't there be an Infobox set up with that information? While we all acknowledge that it is a complicated human conflict, it needs to be organized much better, in its summary, so that is more concise. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You mean the LEAD? Yes, it is bad. It hasn't been touched for ages. But there are new high-quality sources available now, and perhaps it is time to fix it. It will take a while though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Siachen conflict

Why does this article so conveniently fails to mention the Siachen conflict even once? Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Violence against Hindus and Sikhs in Mirpur bhimber kotli muzzafarabad ( western districts of Jammu Province)

Why such bias against Hindus and Sikhs and other minorities of Jammu and Kashmir? Why not a word mentioned about 100% cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from POJk or so called Azad Kashmir? There were atleast 1,50,000 Hindus and Sikhs in POJk and now it's ZERO so why no mention about Mirpur Massacre of tens of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs, Rajouri massacre of tens of thousands of Hindus, and thousands of Hindus and Sikhs massacred in Bhimber kotli muzzafarabad poonch etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.224.244.206 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Raids from Sialkot sector

Why nothing is mentioned about some events of Pakistan sponsored raids from Sialkot sector which actually started from September only into the bordering parts of Jammu which led to large scale looting, killings, rapes and burning of villages of Hindus? Maharaja raised issue with Pakistan authorities but the raids didn't stop. Also why no mention about illegal entry of Muslim league workers into the state to incite communal passions? 110.224.244.206 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You must provide reliable sources EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

182.79.4.251 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My friend, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Rapes and war crimes were committed by both sides of the Kashmiri conflict, so it will be included in the article. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just wrong our people die in Kashmir fighting pakistani terrorists crossing boundaries , Indian army sent helicopters and aids during Kashmir floods and this is how you honor our heroes by publicly disrespecting them , Wikipedia editors kindly change the Indian Army did rapes and abuses ,that is just disrespect to martyred heroes.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing in the valley

Between 1987 and 1990, the Pandits killed in targeted assassinations by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) included some high-profile ones.[31] Occasional anti Hindu calls were made from mosques on loudspeakers asking Pandits to leave the valley.[32][33] News of threatening letters created fear,[34] though in later interviews the letters were seen to have been sparingly received.[35] There were disparities between the accounts of the two communities, the Muslims and the Pandits.[36] Many Kashmiri Pandits believed they were forced out of the Valley either by Pakistan and the militants it supported or the Kashmiri Muslims as a group.[37]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

While Indian soldiers are being blamed for committing atrocities why are not the Pakistani islamic terrorist being talked about who have Literally Massacred thousands of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists.

What is this hypocrisy about? Muslims are very concerned about Islamophobia and trying to cover up their crime in the name of it whereas INDEED several other ethnic groups*Yazidis,Armenians,hindus,Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and many more* have been mass murdered by the jihadists. What about that? Brooke.luvs.hist0ry (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We have included the Exodus of the Kashmiri Hindus in the article. I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, as it seems like you are ranting about Muslims. This is not the page to talk about that subject. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Maps over the claims of each party

I think this article would benefit from adding a set of maps showing specifically what each party claims that the "correct" borders and region names are. Ideally in the same style and bounding box so it's easy to compare visually. Julian Silden Langlo (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This page is not on any border dispute. Borders are not relevant. As for current divisions, I guess the map on the right should do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole Kashmir conflict is a border dispute, so borders are very relevant. And that map doesn't give a clear overview over each parties claim. Julian Silden Langlo (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

The permit system has been abolished with effect from 1st April 1959 Edwardjeni (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Edwardjeni: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 23:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References