Talk:Kashmiri Pandits/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Important

Kashmiri is an Indo-Aryan language of Dardic group. No Turanic people (it is also an Aryan group like the Kashmirs) originated in Kashmir. This is part of a diosinformation effort to slowly change the history of this region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.189.211 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the Rajataringini probably the most credible history of any time. Clearly Hindu Kashmir was not only Aryan ethnically but also culturally and religiously. Now most Kashmiris though of Aryan stock follow a Semitic religion namely Islam. Thus Semitic names and words have permeated in Kashmir. For example a traditional Hindu would refer to Agun for fire while A Muslim often uses the Arabic word Nar. Though by large even the Kashmiri spoken by Muslims largely remains Indo-Aryan in speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.120.54 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree. Surely the Kashmiri Brahmins are the purest of Brahmins and most experts believe that the Aryan Race originated in Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.21.2 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)





{{talkheadeMany famous experts such as Turner, Grierson, Monier-Williams etc. have speculated (quite rightfully) that the Brahmins of Kashmir are the purest of Aryans. Many experts such Johann Christoph Adelung were also convinced that the Race of Aryans had its origin in the Vale of Kashmir.'r}}

The word Aryan and Swastika is a senstive issue due to the cruelty of the Nazis led by the brute Hitler. Ignore this and study the Hindu epics and ancient German epics and you will observe that Manu (in German Mannus) is the first man (Mannus, son of Tuisto was a mythological character from whom a number of Germanic tribes were descended. Tacitus (Germania, chapter 2) explicitly mentions the names of these Germanic tribes, claiming descent from Mannus)in both these cultures. Thus, Experts such as Campbell Grieson, Monier-Willams were of this opinion. Also the great Johann Christoph Adelung (8 August 1732 – 10 September 1806) was a German grammarian and philologist firmly belived (like many other experts) that Kashmir Vallkey is the home of the Aryan Race.

Yes indeed most Indians are Aryans and the Indian Manu (the word Munus or Man arises from Manu) is the father of the Aryan Race. The Kashmiri Pandits are the direct descendents of Manu.

The Germans accoording to their ancient legends are descendents of Manus (Manu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.109.99 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones. Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that these are nine old names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.17 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


I may definitely be born without brains, and that is why I would require you to provide the exact reference information from the "ancient Indian texts" before posting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.194.230 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Aryans or Aryavarta or anything that you are trying to write here. All wikipedia needs is valid references supporting your words. This is fair, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.63.70 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this discussion interesting. It is clear and known without doubt (read ancient Indian texts) that Kashmir was a part of Aryavarta (the abode of the Aryan Race), thus I see no controversy. Also expressing things honestly is not vandalism amongst people with brains.

Just because the history of Aryavarta (abode of Aryans) does not suit some people it can not be made into vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


I do agree that many people are sensitive to the word Aryan. Clearly the Nazis misused this word and Indians have nothing to do with this. Thus Indian can not and will not remove the word Aryan and the Swastika from their culture. Most people of Aryavarta (India) are pure Aryans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.239.161 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Indeed the Aryan word has a bad reputation due to the beastly Nazis. The Indians (including Kashmiri Brahmins who are surely of the Aryan Race) have nothing to do with this. So we can not change olur history to please people, but just look at the truth, which no one can change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Marriage outside is banned by the Bhagwad Gita, to maintain the purity: 'With the preponderance of vice, Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt and with the corruption of women, O descendant of Vrsni there ensues an intermixture of castes' ..I 41 'Admixture of blood damns the destoyers of the race as well as the race itself, Deprived of the offerings of rice and water the manes of their race also fall.' ..42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


One might add that all ancient texts describe the colour of the Aryan race from light to brown. Kashmir is cold thus most people are lighter a climatic reason for colour.

It is improbable that the Aryans would have from Central Asia to other parts of India and back again to Central Asia, as Kashmir is Central Asia. For political reason the Aryan invasion theory is being pushed into India. One can assume that India (parts of Central Asia as well) and Iran are the first known home of the Aryan Race, based on authentic literature.

I would read the Rigveda for Aryans and also Avesta. In addition a visit to Iran might help as well. Read: I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings The king of many countries and many people The king of this expansive land, The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid, Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race "From the Darius the Great's Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


What the hell is a pure Aryan? There is an element of indian cultural but not racial makeup called Arya? Pure Aryan racial element is pure tatti. In cambodia, hinduism was called arya dharma. Where was the aryan aspect there.

U keep putting pure racial aryan gu here it will be deleted.

In all Buddhist countries Hinduism and Buddhism are known as AryaDharmas (the religion of the Aryans) as Buddha was an Aryan. His holiness Dalai Lama refers to India as Aryatara (the Star of the Aryans). It is as simple as that. People are trying to meddle in the culture of Aryavarta (India) as this does not suit them. Indians will never oblige as in India, "Satyameva Jayate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sannuki 65.96.165.73 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Early comments

I deleted a large section taken from this website, which explicitly forbids people from reproducing its material without permission. (If someone can show that they do give us permission, though, we can reinstate and wikify that material.) QuartierLatin1968 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article is NPOV... at all... it reads like propaganda.

What is the basis of the claim that Sanskrit originated in Kashmir?

as written in the article,suresh raina playing for indian cricket team is a kashmiri pandit..as far as i know,he is not,he belongs to UP..its just that his surname is raina and most kashmiris are raina.. Chhaviraina 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic Cleansing"

These kinds of statements are useless unless a SOURCE is provided to verify them... otherwise they are merely baseless propaganda. I will continue to revert these POV edits until someone can provide a legitimate source to back up their claims. Please also look up the term "ethnic cleansing" in a dictionary to understand the full implications of its meaning. Thanks.

It's unfortunate that you do not see ethnic cleansing of Pandits as part of their history, but as some kind of propoganda. The Holocaust is an intrinsic part of Jewish history not a propoganda. Unfortunately for Kashmiri Pandits, there has been hardly any media attention or universal outrage resulting in comments like these.

In the early 1990s, Islamic militants publicly announced that there was no place for Pandits in Kashmir as they not only represented the "Kafirs" but were also symbolic of the Indian presence in Kashmir. Shortly afterwards hundreds of Pandits were singled out and brutally massacared in a carefully planned and excuted campaign of terror and murder. Those who survived, or had the chance, fled for their lives to other parts of India. The mass exodus of Pandits as a result of the carnage inflicted on them by Islamic terrorists resulted in Kashmir being now almost completely a muslim territory. Pandits, the original inhabitants of Kashmir for thousands of years meanwhile languish in poverty and indifference. This, my dear friend, is ethnic cleansing in any language.

Furthermore, Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri born and brought up in UP, just as Nehru was.

One thing should be pretty clear that it is proven that kashmiri pundits are fleding toward india for last seven or eight centuries. I think most of indians who have kashmiri surnames may have some sort of connection with those fleding kashmiri pundits, though today these indians with kashmiri surnames have hardly kashmiri features and skin tone because of the mixing with local indians. (From Son Of Kashmir) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you provide some sources verifying these claims, I have no qualms with you referring to this movement as "ethnic cleansing." Thanks.

I have deleted the sentence "without doubt that Kashmiri Pandits belong to the Aryan race..." and also the sentence following it. There is no proof for an "Aryan race" every existing. And if some ethnic groups called themselves "arya" or aryan, it does not necessarily mean it was an ethnic designation like English, German, or Chinese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.199.154 (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If Suresh Raina is not a Kashmiri Pandit then all future generations of Kashmiri Pandits who have now migrated outside the valley today, a generation or two later those people will aslo be called from Delhi, UP or where ever. Please dont get into such disputes. Deleting the article from a website is another act of foolishness. Let the world know more and more about the community. Keep on like this and the community will disentigrate. Rahul Raina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.68.3 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See also

External Link

Atulsnischal 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Improvement and issues

came accres this article and would like to give my opinion and improve it a bit. as regards the above issues;

1. User IP (67...) plzz give reference for Sanskrit origin of kashmir as asked by dreandruid.

2. dreandruid i agree with you abt the social and political instability in kashmir, but that was not the cause of migration of pandits. the cause of the migration of pandits was that thousands of them were killed by the muslim rulers or forcefully converted. hundreds of temples and learning centres were destroyed. since many pandits were patronised by these temples and learning centres they lost their livlihood. this loss of livlihood coupled with the severe danger to the life of their families forced them to leave the valley. this has been recorded by historians including muslim historians. i recommed you to read tarakh-i-farishta by mhmd qasim which records these chronicles of temple destructions. I am going to remove this political instability issue altogether from this article as it is not the chief reason for the pandit migration. the instability was a fact but its related to the history of kashmir and not kashmiri pandits.

again i do not agree with your choice of words of "gradual migration" or even the other user's choice of "forced migration". Looking at some references cited, since reliable sources UN and us House have called it ethnic cleansing, I would go with ethnic cleansing. We have to use the terminology as used by reliable sources. our words would imply orignal research.

3. yes i agree, some sultans could have patronized the pandits a bit, but the in last 700-800 yrs... but most of them hv been hostile to them and hv subjected them to genocide and forced conversions. so i think we hv to go by wht most of them did...basically wht the kashmiri pandits went through during most of the muslim rule. i hope all of you agree wit this.

3. Again plzz note tht this article isnt abt hindus in general. this is abt the atrocities committed specifically on kashmiri pandits (who just happen to be hindus) by the fundamental muslims. this has been documented and cannot be ignored. its happening even today.

4. the article is missing info abt kashmiri pandits forced to live in refugee camps even today and govt not taking strong action abt their condition. i am adding the same

5. with reference to the civil war mentioned by dreandruid..the civil war also consisted of forced conversion and killing of pandits. During civil war around 25000 pandits were converted to shia faith and thousands were killed. The property of the Hindus was confiscated. And those who were allowed to live had to pay Jazia which was revived by Musa Raina.With Musa Raina and Shamsuddin Iraqi, the Shia preacher, came back to Kashmir with re-doubled enthusiasm for the propagation of his faith. Not content with peaceful preachings, forcible methods came to be practised.

Alishah, son of sikander continued the holocaust.


-Thank you for the lengthy response. Although we may still disagree on some of the historical issues, I agree with you that those issues should be left to a separate page on Early Modern Kashmiri History, not on a page on Kashmiri Pandits. Maybe the paragraph on that early history should be left to a minimum on this page so as to highlight the other sections and leave decisions regarding historical interpretation to other wiki pages and the readers themselves. Deandruid 06:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didnt put in the Sanskrit part. Anyway thanks guys for your edits. The article looks much better now. To the above user (not dreandruid), I chose forcible migration because there seemed to be a dispute. In fact I gave links from very reliable sources which refer to the issue as ethnic cleansing. To dreandruid, could you please say why you had changed the word 'ethnic cleansing' again to gradual migration? I think the above user is correct in saying that we should use words by a reliable source. In fact it was also my mistake that I used 'forcible migration' instead. Do you have any specific reason of not using those words used by sources like UN and US House of Representatives? I am changing it back, if you have any reason to not accept those words, I think we can discuss and revert back to the current version. In any case thanks both you guys for helping shape up the article better!! 67.184.103.51 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "ethnic clensing" in the first paragraph because, as I understand it, the UN ad US House of Representatives are referrring to the ethnic clensing of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s, not warfare of the 14th century. Later on in the article there is a whole subsection on ethnic clensing (where it is also directly connected to events in the 90s).Deandruid 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I deleted "There is mention of the Dardic people, who lived outside the valley of Kashmir. The Kashmiris are not Dards." because it contradicts Dard_people and I added the link disputing the Aryan origin of Kashmiris.[1]

Dacool7 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt the Kashmiri society is imbalanced today without the pundits.it is like an ecosystem which has lost some species critical for its survival.It would also be foolish to say that they have not been wronged. They have suffered a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.65.67 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At the end the Kashmiris, are well-built, goodlooking intelligent people, thus many countries and people want to mould their history to use them. The conclusion is Kashmir, is India and also Central asia. Most of Central Asia, India and Iran has a pure Aryan past. This can not be denied or removed. How can you hope to separate Kashmir from say Tajikstan, when they are next door neighbours and change history-http://www.payvand.com/news/05/dec/1190.html

Yes Tajikstan is to close to Kashmir separate it from Kashmir. Both are pure aryan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

have some least bit of shame :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.131.26 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html

need I say more about the destructive history of muslims?

Image copyright problem with File:Founderdirector2.JPG

The image File:Founderdirector2.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kailash Kher - a Pandit?

There is no citation of him being a Kashmiri Pandit, neither has he acknowledged such a fact in an interview or the like. Please remove him from the list of famous Pandits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthro Freak (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

The Kashmiri Brahmins are certainly pure Aryans. However Kashmiri Brahmins like other Indians can not refer to the Andronovo culture, This is an alien term and no part of the Ridvedic or Zoroastrian texts mention these people. Indians prefer that outsiders not interpret our history, as our history is on solid roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Kashmiri Brahmins have never been referred to as Dards (See Rajataringini). The Dards are the neighbours of Kashmiris and do have similarities racially and linguistically with the Kashmiris, however, there is clear division between theser two groups of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Might add some people in the West are trying hard to create a new racial and cultural history of the Kahmiri Brahmins, which serves the future goals of these scholars. They want to create a mixture in racial and cultural sense. The Kashmiri Brahmins have a solid history and also go first by the Rigveda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the list of surnames: Haq is not a kashmiri pandit surname, but a Muslim surname. The pandit surname is spelled as hak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.249.30 (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The surnames reflect nothing of the origin of any Kashmiri Pundit and are just picked up names dependent on the profession, location etc. The only true origin of Kashmiri Brahmins is their origin from their Aryan Rishi (Gotra). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.221.3 (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseless list of racialist assertions unsupported by evidence

Undoubtedly the purest members of the Aryan Race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.12.221 (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

very nice discussion. The Jews are busy making all important people Jewish (as the Jews are insecure) by false propaganda. In Aryan Kashmir they are wasting their time. Read Kalhana no Semitic influence of any sort in Kashmir in Kashmir up to 1148 AD. Later on a Semitic origin religion the fine Islam was taken up by many Kashmiris but the Race remainned ARYAN. Signed-Aslam Dar—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.212.184 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


The entire entry reads like a long wet-dream and is largely bereft of supporting citations for its long list of Aryan supremacist hypotheses. It starts off with the fantasy of Kashmiris being the pure Aryan race and goes on from there: arrogating even Manu to the Kashmiris and going further than Hitler with this drivel. Claiming the Vedic heritage as your own is absurd and offensive to Saraswat Brahmins. If there are any Kashmiris reading this, do yourself a favour and supply some sources instead of making a shrine to your delusions here on the internet. Make a start by understanding the difference between history and prehistory. And if you're going to keep banging on about being 'Aryans' like some post-colonial slave-syndrome-suffering skin-whitener-buying fudhu, provide links to scientific studies if you don't like to appear as complete, sad, subjugated idiots. --Zubedar (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I have this to say: The best model that we know for the origin of the Aryan race is Central Asia. The Vale of Kashmir in reality can be considered as Indian-Central-Asia. Thus the ancient tradition, the looks and language make thinks very clear that Kashmiris are pure Aryans. Guess what is Short in Kashmiri it is Shurt and what is End in Kashmiri it is And. Truly a Aryan-Vedic linked language as spoken (in pure form) before the advent of Islam. This is not racialism but the PLAIN TRUTH. I happen to be a Kashmiri Muslim and am proud of my roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.243.226 (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some people on our planet want to mould history to their agenda. In India it is impossible to achieve. Kashmir is a part of India which links India to Central Asia. Kashmiri language spoken in its original form is too close to Rigvedic Sanskrit the mother of all Aryan languages. A genuine Kashmiri Brahmin is certainly a pure Aryan and according to many experts world wide (including Germany) Kashmir is the original home of the Aryan Race. This should not bother any one as the Aryans of India are a great culture and civilization. Also I would mention the origin of each person in India is based on the Gotras and not on any other picked up name. Hari Om Mishra (Misra means mix in Sanskrit) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.155 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The history, language, traditions looks, etc. make indicative that the Brahmins of Kashmir belong to the original Central Asian Aryan stock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.1.217 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Lot of inaccuracies in the main article as well. Sultan Sikander was from the Shahmiri dynasty. the origin of this dynasty is from hindus who converted to islam. Besides Shahmira the initiater of this dynasty drew is lineage from Arjuna. Agreed Sikander was a fanatic and not much of a respected Sultan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

POV

{{quote}many have left their homeland due to terrorism and anti-Hindu violence in Kashmir and have settled in various parts of India.}}

  • This comment is not valid as there was no anti-Hindu violence in Kashmir, may be they left valley because of terrorism but that threat was faced by all the Kashmiri's including muslims in valley and other non-Muslim communities.
  • During last 20 years approx 2 Lakh kashmiris have been killed. Oniongas (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Terrorism threat was not faced by Muslims, as they mostly supported the Pak Terrorists, kept them in their homes and provided them with food. People don't know the ground reality and keep on commenting anything. For God's sake do not give out false impression of Kashmir problem, speak the truth. Everyone knows it then why to hide it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.229.75 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If terrorism threat was not faced by muslims, then who killed Lakh's of Muslims in Kashmir valley in the name of security?
What is mentioned in the article about Ethnic cleansing is given with sources. The mentality to ignore Genocide based on religion is communal and should be discouraged. Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned comments

The Brahmins of Kashmir are the purest represntative of the Aryan Race and the Aryan Race originated most likely in Kashmir. some insecure people are trying to change this but have no possiblity to do this.

Tharki Paddey Kise Insecure Bolta hai. HOW ARE THEY THE PUREST REPRESENTATION OF ARYAN RACE? Start with that. Kailash Kher is an "aryan" Even By Desi Pantone skin color metric they guy is not gora. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.165.73 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"purest of Aryans"... really? And all that other unsourced stuff... this article should be scrapped.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.166.36 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Muslim militants targeted and started killing Kashmiri hindus also called Hindu pandits.Some of these pandits killed where renowned scientist,doctors,engineers, ,politician,authors.Muslim militants did this to make Kashmir total Hindu free territory and govern Islam Muslim rule in Kashmir.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajgupta67 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no reasons why this article should be scrapped. The mentality to obliterate other cultures should be scraped.Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

"Muslim Invasion"

Okay, if we are to have a discussion about history, let's do it. First of all, if you are going to give a chronology, please use a reliable source...like one that doesn't jump over several centuries at a time and clearly has a pro-Hindu bent.

That being said, lets move straight on to Sultan Sikander. He was the seventh hereditary successor to the Sultanate throne of Kashmir. The first Sultan was originally a Ladakhi Buddhist prince named Rinchana who claimed the throne in 1320 after the devastation and retreat of the Chaghtai warlord Zulju. He converted to Islam while on the throne and changed his name to Shadru'd-Din. Sikander gained the throne after 69 years of local Muslim ruler -- no invading going on. However, during these 69 years there was tension between Hindu and Muslim communities, as many Central Asian muslims migrated to Kashmir to escape the Chaghtai and later Timurid conquests in further northwest. Sikander himself was a very nasty ruler. He was heavily influenced by his cheif minister Shaifu'd-Din who was a zelous Sunni muslim who convinced Sikander to impose strict shari'a law, jiziya (tax on non-Muslims), destroyed several temples and forced conversion. It is interesting to note that Shaifu'd-Din (the zealous chief minister) was himself a Brahmin Kashmiri Pandit (Suhabhatta) who converted to Islam. Also, several of Sikander's generals were Hindu and his wives -(whose children inhereted the throne) were as well.

We know much of this information from Jonaraja's Rajatarangini (which by the way was a Sanskrit text produced by a Kashmiri Pandit under the patronage of Sultan Zainu'l-'Abidin). In fact, many Kashmiri Pandits were employed in the court of Sultan Zainu'l-'Abidin to produce Sanskrit texts. And he was only 7 years after Sikander and reversed all of his anti-Hindu policies.

All this is to say that Kashmir was not pummelled by Muslim invaders who took over, looted and pillaged. There was a stable, centralized, native Muslim Sultanate that ruled Kashmir with stability for 150 years. Yes, some of these Sultans were oppressive to Hindu population, but several also patronized the building of temples and the authoring of Sanskrit texts.

On a completely separate note, scholars like Ronald Davidson poses strong arguments that many Brahmins migrated for patronage from weakening to stronger courts in North India from the 7th to 12th centuries during the rapid turnover of regional rulers -- all of this before Muslims were a major presence. The last major expansionist ruler of Kashmir before the Sultanate was Lalitaditya in the 9th century. Most history shows that the Kashmiri court suffered great infighting after his rule, and within two centuries it was in shambles. I have little doubt that many Pandits fled Kashmir at that point to find stability and patronage.

All of this is to say that the reasons for early Kashmiri Pandit diaspora is not clear, and the basis for "Muslim invasions" is tenuous. Hindu oppression certainly occurred (under Sikander for sure), but so did Hindu patronage and temple building. In fact, archives show that Akbar (centuries later) even noted how many Hindu temples from before Sultanate continued to exist in his own time.

However, as I mentioned before, I do clearly admit and condemn the incredible violence against Kashmiri Pandits during the 1990s. However, contemporary politics should not blind us to the realities of the past. Deandruid 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)deandruid

Please see http://www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html for a brief chronology of invasions. In addition to this it is well documented that Sikander Butshikan of Sayyed dynasty ((1389-1413) killed several kashmiri pandits and forced many of them to convert. He was a known iconoclast who firmly intended to and finally did establish the Rule of Islam in Kashmir. So an invasion in which Native religious icons are destroyed and an attempt is made to establish a rule of islam can be considered a Muslim Invasion. For example, in a HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, a thai invasion of italy in which churches are destroyed and buddha statues are installed and the native christians asked to leave can be termed as a buddhist invastion In any case, the religious inclination of the invaders was Muslim which is a well known fact. I have provided references for Sikander's invasions. In fact there are were many rulers who persecuted the pandits like Ali shah, khokha (sp?) etc. The migrations of the Kashmiri Pandits have been classified by historians, UN and US house of rep as forced..so calling them gradual migrations is wrong and could imply that they might have migrated for economic or other reasons. I guess we cannot change the facts or twist the truth just to make it NPOV, its just like saying the jews gradually migrated out of israel without giving reasons for the exodus or saying that the holocaust is "believed to have happened" because some people do not believe in its veracity. In fact the migrations can be called "ethnic cleansing" as referred to by several historians, UN, Amnesty as well As Rep. Pallone. However, I am not sure whether to use this term or not.


A couple months back I edited this article to provide a more NPOV regarding Kashmiri Pandit migration. However, it has been edited back to read "forced to migrate to other parts of India over the centuries due to countless Muslim invasions." Three problems arise with this statement. First, migration happened, but how do we know it was "forced" way back when (this does not include the 1990s, etc.)? Second, there was massive political instability in 12th-15th centuries Kashmir, both internal and external. "Invasions" cannot be so directly blamed. Third, Zulju did in fact wipe out the Valley; however, why is his invasion labeled "Muslim" rather than simply Turko-Mongol or Chagtai? That's like saying when the UK enters a war it is an "Anglican invasion" simply because the UK has an official religion, i.e. the monarch is the head of the church. I don't know why his conjectured religious affiliation must be mentioned as part of his military exploits which seem to have no religious purpose. Deandruid 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)deandruid

It is indeed strange that when UK enters a war the official religion remains silent on consequences to those who were conquered. Two wrongs does not make a right and therefore just because one wrong is not acknowledged does not mean that another can be ignored.
In history of Kashmir the invaders exploits have massacred people based precisely on religion and now it can not be ignored for any excuses like ignoring religious purpose.Thisthat2011 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a mess

Please people, we need wikipedia for information and background. We don't need views when they are not asked for. The title here is "Kashmiri Pandit"; that means we should know more about their beliefs, habits, and history. This should not include who they hate. It is possible to make a timeline that involves the Pandits - not their enemies.

The present situation is the result of thousands of years of history. No person 'continually inhabits'. The term 'Aryan' should be be removed from this article - unless someone can show us a living aryan. The Kashmir region has had peaceful and violent times; in the violent times people suffered. To blame is to invite more hate. If this article blames the Brits, the UN, muslims, Moguls, Buddhists, Hindus, terrorism -then what is left to tell about the Kashmiri Pandit's interesting history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.60.214 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with you, anon. I've updated article's grade to C, there's much content in the article; but since it is mostly unreferenced & agenda-pushing, I hardly predict an upgrading anytime soon. Another problem is that (almost exclusively) anon users have been removing & adjusting content without justification over the past few months, so I've marked it as needing immediate attention. Omnipaedista (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think what is said is correct except that Kashmiri Pandits are Hindus. The rest of the people mentioned here - the Muslim invaders, Moghuls, the Brits, terrorism are all to blame in parts for current sorry state of Kashmiri Pandits who are now living as refugees outside their own ancestral land. The UN is also guilty by passive inaction while Pandits were massacred as far as 1992. What is mentioned here is reflection of reality and should not be ignoredThisthat2011 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that this has been downgraded to a C and that there is lot of whitewashing going on in terms of the historical persecution that the Kashmiri Pandits have suffered. OK, do we all agree on the facts surrounding the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur ji? Please cross reference with Wikipedia. If we agree on this one instance of historical persecution then I will move to the next one. We will build this one step at a time if we have to. Peeth (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Peeth

LANGUAGE OF KASHMIR VALLEY

Clearly an Aryan language linked to Rigvedic Sanskrit. Please also note the history of Kashmir is clear and without any ambiguity. This Aryan Land has the Rajataringini. Nevertheless, in this age of disinformation many foreigners who have an agenda are using the media to target the layman. Note the word Ju is the corrupted form of the suffix Ji which is added to name of an Aryan gentleman. This Ji becomes Zei in Afghanistan. For example Khilji or Khilzei. Also no genuine word Jew exists and it is the corrupted form of the word Jude. What makes languages similar is not the sound of one or two words (with different meanings) in different languages, but the sound and meaning being similar of most words in different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note must be taken that like most Indians the Kashmiri Brahmins go by their own religious and other historical texts. The Brahmins are Kashmir are distinct in ethnicity and are pure Aryans. However, they will never accept foreign interpretations of their race or culture. No mention of the so called Andronovo culture exists in the Kashmiri or other Indian texts. We just hear Aryan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The origin of Kashmiri Brahmins is simple: They originated from Manu (the word Man arises from this) the first Aryan. Next the first book of the Aryans the Rigveda (which mentions the Aryan Race) was compiled in this area. Kashmir has always been a region of Aryavarta (the abode of the Aryans). Actually Ariana and Aryadesa were also regions of Aryavarta.

I might add to this day Kashmiri is close to Rigvedic Sanskrit (the mother of all Aryan languages), though it has picked up some Arabic (Semitic) words due to the influence of Islam in the Valley. The language spoken by an Orthodox Hindus rarely if ever has Arabic in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is even an effort to make the Kashmiri Brahmins by false propaganda in Semites (Jewish-Arabs). The Kashmiri people, genetically, liguistically and the Kashmiri Brahmins religiously and culturaly as well have nothing to do with Semites. Also the highest ever reported presence o haplogroup of R1a1* is in Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharia tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Saivaism / Vaishnavaism

"Most Kashmiri Pandits are devout Shaivites, however many Kashmiri Pandit families who had migrated into other Indian territories have been ardent Vaishnavites as well." What does this mean? Does this mean that the Pandits converted to Vaishnavaism after their immigration? Frédéric.Cabrolier (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No I it means that many of the refugees are found to be Vaishnavaites as well.Thisthat2011 (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article relies far, far too heavily on one potentially biased source, ie; the jkmigrant website. I am not saying that it is wrong, but it definitely needs a much wider base of sources and those should not themselves be getting their information from that website. For example, do the UN have anything to say regarding these issues? - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The website mentioned is Govt. website. It is not biased!! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You have never come across bias in government? In any event, things are becoming a little more even-handed after work to remove your numerous copyvios etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well your edits have moved far beyond copy vio. I guess I will have to redo the whole thing again.
By the way, which part of the edits from the Govt. sources were 'biased'? It shows work done/planned by the Govt. Is there any kind of propaganda by the secular Govt? Please point out those so that it could be removed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Section removed

I have just removed the Pre-Islamic history section. It has remained uncited for a long time and some of it looks suspiciously like copyvios and close paraphrasng. Let's start over, from the top.

I'll be doing the same with any other entirely uncited sections, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting it is better to use {{under-construction}} rather than removing the whole section altogether. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How does an "under construction" tab mean "don't change things"? If material is unreferenced, it can be removed. Much of this material has been unreferenced (and challenged or not) for years, so I doubt that all of a suddens someone's about to come and fix that.
On a minor sidenote, your replying to 3yr old Talk posts is keeping outdated discussion on this page vice the archives; barring a particular reason to think a Talk post is still an ongoing issue, it's best to not reply to them and just let the Archive bot move them there for posterity. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Where does the tab says 'don't change things'? Please point out.
The current scenario just has this apalling situation where there is no History mentioned in the page before Islamic invasions, which seems to have been missed. This looks awkward.
Please link my reply on 3-year old talk posts. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


Link? Scroll up slightly, they're all on this page. In the section "Muslim Invasion" you respond to a post from 2007. Are you not noticing that you're replying to posts that old as though they were current discussions?
So far as the "apalling situation", if you want Pre-Islamic history on this page, you can just nip into Google Books, find some good key points, and arrange them here with proper footnotes. We can't just keep uncited material here because nobody feels like finding citations.
I didn't say "don't change things", you above objected to removing uncited material, suggesting instead that we put up an "under construction tag". I'm a bit confused about how you're demanding proof of things happening literally on this same page. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this a standard practice on Wikipedia? Removing history if nothing is cited? Where is the proof that the material is copy-pasted from some sources? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why, yes, it is indeed WP standard pratice to remove uncited material and replace it with cited material. Why would uncited material be superior to cited? And why should we trust uncited material? The material clearly came from somewhere, and it needs to be clearly source to be credible, and show that it's not just someone's opinion or fiction. Since this is important to you, I'd imagine you could knock out a couple well-cited paragraphs in an hour or so, which is not a huge time commitment. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which part of "Is this a standard practice on Wikipedia? Removing history if nothing is cited? Where is the proof that the material is copy-pasted from some sources?" is not understood. Regardless of whether I do contribute, removing history is awkward. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
An example for you. I write here that "Kashmiri Pandits moved to France in 1900" and do not cite it. What would you do? - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is about History of Kashmiri Pandits. Not a line of unreferenced material. A line removed will not make a huge difference to the article but removing entire history prior to Muslim conquest makes this page devoid of history of thousands of years. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You are correct, it is not a line of unreferenced material, it is a whole bunch of lines of unreferenced material. I 100% agree there should be a Pre-Islamic History section; it should be there, and it should be properly footnoted. You seem familiar with the topic and interested in this article, so you'd be a great choice to go and start building up such a section based on WP:Reliable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please read my reply above. This article looks absurd now in absence of History prior to Islamic invasion, and it is better to have the substance than otherwise. As far as who is better, I think you can start too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be suggesting that we place style over substance. A peculiar notion for an encyclopedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No sir, not exactly. The substance is uncited is all. Not sure if each line and everything uncited is deleted on Wikipedia. The purpose of my suggestion on the first line of this discussion itself is to have the content stay and improvise instead of removing it altogether. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

edit incorrect

Hi,

The magazine is online. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. This is a link to the magazine's website but the content is only available as "teasers" - pointless. In any event, what is so special about this magazine that it should feature over, say, any other. Take a look at WP:ELNO also. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Amnest Int'l source

Just copying the link here so that we don't forget to cite to it (in a non-copyvio way) as we move forward: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/013/2003/en/94d329bd-d713-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/asa200132003en.html - India/Kashmir: Safeguard the lives of civilians, March 2003. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

edit incorrect

Hi,

Raj Zutshi is a Kashmiri Pandit as per 1, 2. Please revert the edit. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you fix his own article on WP first to reflect the info (which I have not checked), then this article can be amended. But it is a crap image anyway in the context that it was used, so perhaps not worth reinstating. Please bear in mind that image collages are as subject to the policies etc of WP:V and WP:NLIST as any other "list". - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
One has to deal with available sources. Reinstating the image won't make much of a difference. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. If it won't make much difference then we'll leave it out & save a fraction of a second on the page load time. Are you going to fix the other article or are you just going to carry on telling everyone else what to do? - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It won't make any difference so I will include it. It is better that the behavior of 'carry on telling everyone else what to do?' should be inspected fairly, not unfairly. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed cite

I have just removed the following citation, since the work appears to consist of at least three volumes (the originals from 1829 are in full view at www.archive.org, if anyone is interested) - <ref>Muhammad Qãsim Hindû Shãh Firishta : Tãrîkh-i-Firishta, translated by John Briggs under the title "History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India." First published in 1829, New Delhi Reprint 1981.</ref>. There may be useful content in it, somewhere, but it is very old. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine sourcing

I'll try to get to it later, but wanted to make sure we don't forget to rebuild the "Cuisine" section. Several promising hits on gBooks we can use to footnote that section: [2]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I am just tearing down the obvious here, and adding bits where I can. As said earlier, this basically needs a top-down rewrite. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No doubt. I'm hungry now too just reading those bits. The sources have some great info about peculiarities of KP diet compared to other Brahmins, so those will be really interesting and distinctive points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of the page

Hi,

As of now, the page has lost a lot of contents, and in deed needs top down rewrite. As an example, the history of Pandits prior to Muslim prosecutions is removed, details like that most of Pandits live in refugee camps is somehow completely missed out, and so on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We have already said that it needs such a rewrite, but remember that Wikipedia is timeless. It was far more important that we do not present incorrect information than that we present good information. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a difference between incorrect and uncited material? Why are you claiming that the information is incorrect, please provide sources. As earlier mentioned, all uncited material is not deleted. The 'good information' is not even present to talk about. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No difference, substantively, at Wikipedia. Note that I italicised the word. You have been told this time and again. I am on the verge of just ignoring your future messages as the signal-to-noise ratio is becoming very skewed. In fact, the more you say the things you do, the more I think that you are in fact likely to be a POV pusher. It seems to be a fair example of WP:COI. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
How am I POV pusher? I am not even an author/expert of the matter deleted. The substance is not incorrect, it is uncited. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The User ‘Sitush’ has (repeatedly) been removing content from the article. The following sections, which formed a very large portion of the article, were removed entirely by that user: Pre-Islamic History, Migration to the Indo-Gangetic Plain (1400-1900), List of Kashmiri Pandit refugee campsites, Culture – particularly the section on Cuisine, and Surnames (including how many of them came into being). These changes have made the article less informative. In the interest of those who wish to learn about aspects of Kashmiri Pandits other than their political problem, I have been trying to restore the original article, which was more comprehensive and balanced. However, the User ‘Sitush’ and some other users are extremely uncooperative. Even if information such topics as cuisine and culture is poorly referenced, it must not be deleted because such information could have been provided by individuals with first-hand knowledge. The authenticity of such information can be maintained by allowing other users to freely object to and edit specific statements in these sections. However, deletion of more than half of the original article is unjustifiable. Knowledgeable users other than those who claim to be ‘cleaning up’ the article by removing content must be allowed to express themselves. I would advise ‘Sitush’ to add to the existing article and refrain from deleting entire sections. I would also request other users to protect the original, more comprehensive article from politically-motivated persons who are attempting to check the Kashmiri Pandits' freedom of expression on the internet – This note has been written by the User 'Yardang' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.178.182 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Kashmiri "Pandit" identitiy

Why all hindus from kashmir valley are called kashmiri pandits, large number of these hindus from valley belong to castes other than brahmins but these days every hindu from valley is called pandit, it is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.146.23 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I was only thinking the same thing last night. It will be addressed in the article as a part of what is likely to be a major re-write. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Pandits are majorly Kashmiri Brahmins. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
And therefore we should ignore the people who are not Brahmins and/or not Pandits? There is an issue of clarity here and it needs to be addressed. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The name of the page is 'Kashmiri Pandits'. Please do not ignore others too, though. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The point is that as the article stands it gives the appearance that the Pandits are all of the Hindus from there, so we do indeed need to ensure that this is clarified. An example: it talks of the Pandits (and Buddhists) as being the people who suffered religious persecution in the 1300s etc whereas what it should say is that the Hindus and Buddhists suffered religious persecution - it is a gross distortion to say otherwise because it implies that the other Hindu groups were ok. I am afraid that this is the sort of thing that tends to happen when people with a conflict of interest start editing articles: they completely miss the big picture. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
IN fact, unless there are significant differences between these Hindu communities, there is a good argument for turning this article into a redirect to something like Hindus of the Kashmir Valley, where the entire, wider community can be addressed in one hit. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Kashmiri Pandits are very much notable and so is the article. However, another article on Hindus in Kashmir is welcome too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
And they are notable as a separate group because ... ? - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You need to see notability of Kashmiri Pandits as a separate group? You could read some sources to have a good answer to that. Here is a link.~
Sorry, you are missing my point and I am getting very frustrated with your apparent unwillingness to contribute to articles unless by use of copyvio etc. Just let me get on with doing something constructive, please. I know that they are notable; my point was that, yet again, you threw out a bland statement and expected everyone else to do the work for you. I am prepared to meet you halfway but I am not prepared to be your servant. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
"your apparent unwillingness to contribute to articles unless by use of copyvio etc" wow thats some frustration, but why blame me for everything. Your edits have gone way beyond copyvio. I did not expect anyone to work for me, I don't expect anyone to be my servant and I don't expect to recognize whatever I do. But for Wikipedia's sake, stop making bland flat statements on my contributions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The Kashmiri Pandits are obviously a notable ethnic community. To state otherwise is an insult in and of itself. Furthermore, i don't see a reason for an article named Hindus of the Kashmir Valley. Even the Muslims there are not all of Kashmiri descent. An article Hinduism in Jammu and Kashmir would be more appropriate, and could also elaborate on the differences. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 07:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Editing of the Page on Kashmiri Pandits

There is some incorrect information written on the page regarding "Kashmiri Pandits" but it is protected, so don't know how to edit it. Anyway, know how? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarNavi (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If you list your points here then I can sort it out for you but if you do not provide citations for what you want to say then it is quite likely it will not be added. See reliable sources for information about what constitute suitable material for citations. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The User ‘Sitush’ has (repeatedly) been removing content from the article. The following sections, which formed a very large portion of the article, were removed entirely by that user: Pre-Islamic History, Migration to the Indo-Gangetic Plain (1400-1900), List of Kashmiri Pandit refugee campsites, Culture – particularly the section on Cuisine, and Surnames (including how many of them came into being). These changes have made the article less informative. In the interest of those who wish to learn about aspects of Kashmiri Pandits other than their political problem, I have been trying to restore the original article, which was more comprehensive and balanced. However, the User ‘Sitush’ and some other users are extremely uncooperative. Even if information such topics as cuisine and culture is poorly referenced, it must not be deleted because such information could have been provided by individuals with first-hand knowledge. The authenticity of such information can be maintained by allowing other users to freely object to and edit specific statements in these sections. However, deletion of more than half of the original article is unjustifiable. Knowledgeable users other than those who claim to be ‘cleaning up’ the article by removing content must be allowed to express themselves. I would advise ‘Sitush’ to add to the existing article and refrain from deleting entire sections. I would also request other users to protect the original, more comprehensive article from politically-motivated persons who are attempting to check the Kashmiri Pandits' freedom of expression on the internet.Yardang (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.178.182 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that you misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. All information provided must be verifiable to reliable sources, so first-hand knowledge is not acceptable and nor is it acceptable to retain content that is plainly not verifiable, plainly not reliably sourced or consists of material which has been tagged as requiring such evidence for a considerable time. Wikipedia is not a place to "express yourself", nor to engage in original research. Finally, you should not attack people - you have absolutely no evidence to support your accusation that I am politically motivated and you could in fact be blocked from editing for making such a clearly ridiculous claim. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, I have never visited either country, I am never been a member of any political group in my own country ... and so on. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to include a Cuisine section, note that earlier on this talk page I provide a link to a search which turns up several good footnotes for sourcing such a section. So far as the list of refugee campsites, it fails WP:Notability since it was simply a lengthy list of places with no context given, and also was not cited to any reliable source. Without context, how is an unfamiliar reader to assign any importance to the fact that there is a camp in X Village (of which he has never heard) vice Y Village (of which he has never heard)? And due to lack of referencing, a reader would have no way of knowing whether the list were accurate or no, or whether locations had been added/removed to it without explanation. Whereas if a serious reader, say, a journalist looking for background for a story, were to read the list on Wiki and see it had a good footnote, he could refer to that footnote (say, from a United Nations study) and ensure the list was authorititative and correct. This is why sourcing is vital, and unprovable personal assertions don't work. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I now agree with both Sitush and MatthewVanitas and will not attempt to restore the earlier version of the article beacuse it contains unreferenced information and original research. It is sad that high-quality published material is not available to support the statements made in that version of the article. Perhaps a less informative article would be better than a more informative but poorly referenced article. I must clarify that I did not use the term 'politically motivated' for 'Sitush' or any particular user. I made a general appeal that the article must be protected from persons who are using Wikipedia articles as a political weapon against certain ethnic groups. (Yardang (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC))
Since the article is now mainly about the political history of Kashmiri Pandits, I am of the view that it should be renamed. The second sentence in the opening paragraph of the article is unreferenced and I personally consider it irrelevant to the theme. (Yardang (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC))
The article is poor but is arguably less poor than it was until recently. It is certainly less political than it was. I intend to develop it but am getting side-tracked by other issues. Give it time, and feel free to add stuff yourself. As far as the second sentence goes, it serves as a clarification and is indubitably correct: not all Hindus in Kashmir are/were Pandits and not all Pandits are from Kashmir. It will probably be removed when the article gets a more thorough work-over, since at that time it should be possible to make the situation clear in the body of the thing. For now, it is pretty harmless and is verifiable almost on a "common sense" basis. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Most Kashmiri Pandits are of the view that all Hindus belonging to the Kashmir region (the part of the state excluding the Jammu and Ladakh regions, i.e. north of the ridge-line of the Pir Panjal Range and West/Southwest of the Great Himalayan Range) are Brahmins. You may not come across any Hindu of Dardic Kashmiri ethnicity who is a non-Brahmin. Please delete the statement unless you have published evidence to support the claim that some Hindus of Kashmiri ethnicity are not Brahmins. I personally have not come across any non-Brahmin Kashmiri Hindu family name or clan. (Yardang (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

Request to Sitush and any other user who was involved in removal of unreferenced content from the article: Please use the book "The Kashmiri Pandits" by Henny Sender to expand this article. (Yardang (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

Henriette Sender? This one? I can't see it here and cannot get to the library at the moment. You can always use it and perhaps others have access also. I've got a 50-something page article to read on them at the moment. It is going slowly. Regarding your other point, as I said previously this was added because someone said exactly the opposite of you and it seemed to be reasonable to make the change pending a cite being found. Certainly, Pandits are not all from Kashmir. If you are saying that all Hindus in all regions of Kashmir are Brahmins then fair enough, but you seem to be qualifying it & I am curious as to how the Brahmins survived in days of old because just as Jewish people used to employ Gentiles to light their fires for them at the time of their sabbath, so too it strikes me that Brahmins needed other groups to perform certain polluting activities for them. Have I got this wrong? - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Even those Kashmiri Hindus who, for example, were traditionally sweepers or peasants, were Pandits. For example, the Pandit (Brahmin) family name 'Vatal / Watal / Wattal' means sweeper and there was never any discrimination against persons with this surname. The Pandits were engaged in all professions from teaching and administration to feeding mules. The rigid hierarchical caste system of the Indian lowlands never existed in Kashmir probably because the general level of education among the Kashmiri Pandits was very high. At present, the proportion of literates in the world's total Kashmiri Pandit population, in my view, would not be lower than 97 percent. You may like to read this article: http://www.koausa.org/Caste.html (Yardang (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
I understand your reasoning but still find it difficult to believe, and so did someone else who posted before you got involved. Your source is from a related group and as such needs to be considered with care, even more so because it has not been peer reviewed etc and is extremely short on support for its thesis. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mongols

No Mongols never entered the Kashmir Valley this is more than well documented. Zulju was surely not a Mongol this is proven beyond any doubt by Kashmiri texts of that period. The Mughals were not Mongols but a Central Asian Aryan-Mongol mix as a result of the conquest of many regions of Central Asia by the Mongols. Kashmiri history is is clear thus there is no latitude for manipulation.

Sorry, but if you read the article properly you will see that it does not say Mongols invaded Kashmir. If you read the cited source you will see the same. What they both say is that Zulju was probably a Mongol - him, alone, but not necessarily his soldiers etc. Now, if you think this is wrong then you need to provide more than a lecture or opinion. We need reliable sources to support your statement. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, if you can find reliable sources to support your claim, then a discussion can be started about is correct. But until then, we have to default to whats here.Millertime246 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Lot of fake data Zulji (not Zulju) was not a Mongol. These is cleverly being inserted by some people to push their agenda. Second Martand is Kashmiri-Aryan architecture. Also KPs are the first known worshipers of the Aryan Rigvedic God Agni (Agun in Kashmir). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.67 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what agenda it is that you believe is being pushed, but let me assure you that I for one have no agenda at all other than to abide by the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community. For this reason, I shall shortly yet again revert your unsourced contributions. Feel free to find some reliable sources to support your statements but until then I would advise that you do not reinstate them. This is getting very, very close to edit warring and could result in someone being blocked from contributing. I am happy to guide you and welcome improvements to this article, which is very messy, but we have to abide by the Wikipedia "system". - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin issues

Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) are one of the most homogenous people on our planet. There is heavy politics involved to show them otherwise. Since ages a few out-of-caste marriages have occuirred in this community but the progeny of this often develops into a new caste such as the Bohrs of Kashmir. Indeed these people (Kashmiri Brahmins) are the first known Rigvedic Central Asian Aryans. I agree Kashmiri Brahmins only go by Rigveda (which was composed in this region) and Rajataringin.

View of Pt. Lokesh Nath Zadoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This community is amongst the first known worshippers of Agni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.153 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


The Arabs never made it even close to the Kingdom of Kashmir let alone the Kashmir Valley. Also Mahmud of Ghazni (Turk) was twice defeated by Hindu Kashmir. Kashmir has a solid history in the Rajataringini. Even at the height of their power the Arabs could only make it to Sind and Multan on the Indian subconitent. They were then defeated soundly by Lalitaditya and Bappa Rawal. For further reading see- http://www.scribd.com/doc/416177/The-ChachnamaAn-Ancient-History-of-Sind http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/BIRUNI.html

If people want to change the history of this region as this does not suit therm, they surely can not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The website is of no use. However, the translated book may be, if you can pinpoint the relevant pages for us. Please bear in mind that if those pages are the translation rather than the comments of the translator then it will not usually be acceptable because it appears to be an ancient text and therefore a primary source. - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Kashmiris do not have any origin confusion, though attempts are being made by foreigners and their plants to create a confusion in order to serve the foreign agenda. Most Kashmiri Muslims are converts to Islam from Hindus. The Kashmiri to this day speak a Rigvedic based language and the Kashmiri Brahmins worship the Rigveda, the first book of the Aryan Race. all is done in from of Agun (fire). Also Kashmiris are not Dards (study the Rajataringini), while the Dards their neighbors are Aryan as well. Kashmiri and shina is pretty close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the Martand Sun Temple has nothing Greek in it (The Greeks or Macedonians never made it to Kashmir, read Rajataringini) it has been mentioned as pure Aryan Kashmiri architecture.

No Andronovo culture is mentioned in the Rigveda or Avesthan texts thus this Western planted term must be ignored by the Indians. Rameshwar Prasad Mishra

Some politically motivated people want to make Zulju, as a Mongol by fake data fot their long term agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I, for one, have no motivation regarding the subject matter of this article at all, other than to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. With regard to your numerous recent attempts to adjust it, could you please take a look at the policies for verifiability and sourcing. WP:CITE might also assist.
I am giving you one last chance to discuss and/or fulfil those policy requirements. If you insert the information once more in the manner that you have been doing then I think that you may need to take some enforced time out in order to give you a chance to read through how Wikipedia works, It is not a perfect environment, and this article is certainly a mess, but we have to collaborate in the environment that we choose to be in - you do not just get your own way, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no Zulju but Zulji and it is well established that he was not a Mongol. Why the Mongol is being planted into Kashmir is for long term politics and agendas. It is well known the Rigveda was compiled in this region and neighboring areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.10.22 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, stop it. The relevant points are cited to a reliable source. Now, if you can find reliable sources saying otherwise than that is fine and good - we will show both opinions. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own. - Sitush (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You may also want to read up on WP:SOCK, and note the comments about meatpuppets. There are a suspiciously high number of IPs contributing here from a very small area in the USA. - Sitush (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We know the origin of Sitush and Salvio giuliano and what they are up to. They can not succeed against us Kashmiri Pandits we are ahead of them. We know our history.

Rakesh Khar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.155 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The origins of contributors is irrelevant, and this talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article. It is quite specifically not for discussion of the contributors. If you have a problem with the actions of one or more contributors then there are forums available for raising that, such as WP:ANI.
The article has recently been semi-protected in order to prevent disruption. The disruption that triggered this decision is the repetitive addition over a long period of unsourced material by one or more people using IPs in the 65.88.88.x range. The semi-protected status does not prevent people from suggesting improvements to the article by use of this talk page but please note our basic requirements regarding statements made in articles: they must be verifiable by use of reliable sources and they must be neutral in tone. If you click on the preceding three blue links then you will get more information on these issues. We also have a good explanation of how to cite sources but right now it is somewhat redundant because IP contributors cannot actually edit the article directly.
I suggest that you propose any changes here and include a note of the sources that you feel support those changes. If they have consensus or are clearly non-controversial then, honestly, they will be enacted. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Population figures of Kashmiri Pandits in 1985

@ Sitush: You have reverted the population figures that I quoted out of Lawrence (Oxford Press). The figures for 1985 are clearly stated in the book. What is your concern ?? Ambar 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)

It is an 1895 book, not 1985. Worthless unless it has some modern context, which it does not because the modern figure was unsourced etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, 1895. I would like to add the 1895 population figures first, as have verifiable resource to cite. We may remove the modern population figures for now.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Why? It is useless information without some context. A factoid, if you like. Furthermore, the source is very dubious because the methodology used in censuses of that time was extremely poor. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason is that I would like to slowly build a table of population trend for Kashmiri Pandits over the last few decades (or even centuries). Since this record is available, its a starting reference point. Considering that the data was documented by Lawrence (the then Comissioner of Kashmir), the source is likely to be the most authentic goverment record maintained by the British. Ambar 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)


POPULATION FIGURES

1895 Population - 60,316 <referenced from Lawrence, Oxford Press>
1941 census - 79,000 <referenced from AlJazeera News - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/07/2011724204546645823.html

Am planning to include the following figures in the article, which I plan to convert into a table once I get the 1991 & 2010 census figures from the Goverment (its a slow process to get info from the govt, so for now I will mention them as text only. Trust we have consensus. Pls reply Sitush. Thanks. Ambar 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)

Kashmiri Pandit Family Names

Would like to add the family names of Kashmiri Pandits to this article. [3]

Such lists of names are generally a bad idea, as they provoke constant tampering (often by IPs), often with zero explanation. Add a name, remove a name, etc. and the list eventually becomes quite different from what the source actually says, but since it has a footnote people might mistakenly think that it is accurate and untampered. I'd also submit that lists of names aren't particularly relevant to a general understanding of Kashmiri Pandits, and more fall into the class of being minutiae, technical details, or just fansite content. That said, I could certainly see providing a link to the source under "further reading", and mention that Page XYZ contains a list of names. That way people could still read the list, but nobody would be able to tamper with the names. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is not a good idea. I note also that many of those names are widely used by other communities, including those that have absolutely no connection to the Indian subcontinent at all, eg: Nicky Butt. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


-- Reply to Matthew & Sitush --

@ MatthewVanitas - Perhaps a link under "further reading" would be a good idea. However, in many cases the surnames of Kashmiri Pandits are unique and quite particular to the Kashmiri people. Hence, it does spread common awareness about people with those family names of Indian origin.
@ Sitush - Understood your point. However, there would be many such common surnames around the world & coming from different communities which are spelt in a similar fashion. My feeling is that they should still be shared with everyone, & if there are articles on them in the future (or links), then a disambiguation page may be created. For example Butt may be replaced by Bhat on the list (as is done on the wiki page).
Anyways, understood the point and am now thinking of a better way to include information on surnames of Kashmiri Pandits on this page (or another page).

Ambar 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)


-- Am planning to add the following section to the Kashmiri Pandit article --

Naming of Kashmiri Pandits

It is said that the original names of Kashmiri Pandits were structured based on Gotra. According to Anand Koul, the gotra-structured names were initially restricted to three principal groups - Bhat, Pandit & Razdan.

Surnames based on Nicknames

Today Kashmiri Pandits have a wide spectrum of fascinating surnames which represent some intrinsic ingenuity as well as some splash of nasty humour. Over a period of time these nicknames become associated with Kashmiri families & eventually get adapted as surnames. It is worth noting that the number of such nicknames associated with the surname Koul is the largest of all, thereby also suggesting that almost all Kashmiri Pandits were Kouls and were later on subdivided based on their nicknames which eventually became their surnames. [2]

Don't bother. The ISBN that you provide is invalid and according to the GBooks link that you provide this is a self-published source, as is everything produced by Lulu.com. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you really do need to reconsider your position regarding the Kaul/Koul name, which you seem to want to insert in all sorts of places. While there is no problem working on stuff in your sandbox etc, I do rather think that you are wasting your time and becoming engaged in repetitive activity without making any real progress at all. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Point well taken, & the effort was to basically link certain articles related to Kashmiri Pandits and Kauls (they are basically the same community), & perhaps the methodology needs a relook. Just read the self-published source section and will reconsider & look for other sources before posting this section. Ambar 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

-- further update --
Dear Sitush, am now providing the correct ISBN (earlier one was a mistake) for the book 'Exploring Kashmiri Pandit' ISBN: 978-0963479860 (978-0963479860). Can you please verify if this is acceptable. I think this would make the source more reliable. My primary interest is in getting the following information up on the Kashmiri Pandit page, in order to explain how the naming of Kashmiri Pandits has over time resulted in several surnames, which may have originated from an original common surname (this is hypethesis & I will not be mentioning this on the page). The limited content would be as follows, [Details commented out by Sitush because the sectioning is messing up the talk page layout. Contribution is still visible in edit pane]

We could omit the 'Kaul' related part for now, & I would look for more reliable sources to state that in this article later. However, for the minimalistic approach to putting verified content, pls again have a look at the reduced text.-Ambar 18:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It is still a self-published book printed by Lulu.com ... and it is a SPS that has almost certainly been written by someone with a conflict of interest (the "Pandit" surname). It is not acceptable, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Improvements required in Content, Flow & Formatting

I think this article is too inclined towards the history of Kashmir & how Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave the valley. Feel that this article needs better balance, & that can be done only via a mjor reformatting and editing of content. I plan to create a draft in my sandbox area and would request users to have a look (maybe another day or so). We need to talk more specifically about the Kashmiri Pandit community, their specific history (& not the whole history of Kashmir), & their customs, music, literature, famous kings / rulers etc. A lot of content (irrelevant) would need removal and more relavant and sourced contect would need to be added. -Ambar 18:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambar wiki (talk • contribs)

I have just reverted a further contribution by Ambar wiki because - yet again - it was a draft posted to a talk page, complete with the draft article section heading etc. I have asked before: please, please do not do this because it really messes up the layout.

As for my response to that reverted edit, well, the 1931 census was not reliable and the 1981 census did not have a caste etc element. In fact, there were no such censuses between 1931 and 2011. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Understand about the formatting issue & have moved the draft to the Sandbox and am working on it there. Also, the above statement about "No Census in Kashmir between 1931 & 2001 is not entirely correct. A census took place in Kashmir except in 1991 (for which Govt of India has provided projections based on the standing committee stats.) Also, BBC clearly reports in the website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/ that the population of Kashmir Valley in 1981 consisted of 4% Hindus. This matches with the information that I have put up on the sandbox draft article. Also, the caste based information is captured in every census of India (including the previous one) however they are not published online. Copies of this date however may be obtained from the Govt offices on a case to case basis. Hence, kindly consense. -Ambar (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There are several other websites that readily share such information about caste distribution in India (& also in Individual states). Kindly refer the link below for more information. http://www.mapsofindia.com/india-demographics.html. Hence, its wrong to say that no such census took place. -Ambar (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There was no caste census by any government of India after 1931 and until 2011. Numerous university-published sources, including at least one that deals specifically with censuses in India, say this. The name of that source will come back to me but in the interval, are you saying that an exception was made for Kashmir? As for the BBC report, well, this is the old chestnut: you need to show that all Hindus in Kashmir are Kashmiri Pandits: it is an issue that has been raised time and again on this page and so far no-one has been able to verify it. Mapsofindia, the Joshua Project etc are not reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012


Shashikant Nishant Sharma 13:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This request is declined because you did not specify any change that you wanted in the article. Please try again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dina nath walli.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dina nath walli.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dina nath walli.PNG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Urdu language

I recently removed Urdu from the language list, but the edit was undone by User:Sitush. The language spoken by Kashmiri Pandits, as the name suggests is Kashmiri. Apart from it, they speak Hindi. Some may argue that they speak Urdu also. So instead of going deep in this Hindi-Urdu dispute, I may suggest Sitush to read about Hindustani language. Hindustani itself means Hindi+Urdu. So there is no need of mentioning Hindi or Urdu when Hindustani is already present. SubQuad (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I undid it as a part of reverting something else. I did not reinstate it because Indic scripts are an absolute nightmare and, indeed, are now not permitted in India-related articles. Kashmir is a disputed territory, which makes that policy somewhat awkward, but if people start to war over this then I will indeed remove all of the scripts. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, this was language - same thing applies, though. Basically, if you cannot source it then I will remove the entire list. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oregon ruling

I have recently removed this for a second time, following Fowler&fowler also removing it here. Basically, what the State of Oregon thinks about the KPs is trivial, and I am sure that there have been plenty of other legislatures who have passed motions related to the KPs and similar communities. I had thought that Fowler&fowler had explained his reasoning here but it seems not, so now you know. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


Totally disagreed with removal by Fowler&Fowler. The Oregon resolution is present in the article from a long time and the resolution is definitely relevant to the article.

If other resolutions have also been passed, then they can also be mentioned in the article. But removal of this resolution from the article is nothing but vandalism. SubQuad (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not call good faith edits vandalism. You have linked to that article, so I suggest that you actually read it. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is that resolution: [4]. I don't think that it was a good faith edit. It is a clear case of vandalism. The content shud be restored. SubQuad (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know where the resolution is, thanks. It is a primary source and would be trivial even if it were not. Now, if the United Nations had passed such a resolution then perhaps there would be cause to include it but the social conscience of a US state legislature where Kashmiri Pandits presumably are an extreme minority is simply not important. It is not even the entire US, and no individual US state has any legal powers regarding foreign policy etc, at least as far as I am aware. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to decide whether state in US has the right to interfere in the foreign policy or not. Its just a resolution, not a kind of intervention. Btw, states in US are given much more rights that countries like India or Pakistan. They enjoy much greater autonomy. In fact they have a unique right of separation from the union unlike the vast majority of world nations.

See what reason was given by Fowler&Fowler while removing the content : "Since when did Oregonians become experts on South Asia. 9 out of 10 couldn't spot Kashmir on a map to save their lives"

Pandits were targetted by militants specifically by militants. Hence the resolution was passed. Its totally irrelevant to discuss whether they are highly experts or not! I am restoring the content. I think we have discussed it enough. SubQuad (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, two people disagree with one and you think that you have consensus to restore the information? I think not. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This caught my eye after recently reading about a number of towns and cities on the Oregon Coast passing resolutions calling for the US Congress to cease considering corporations as people (see [5] for example). I'm no expert on the topic, but I think there is a trend in Oregon for political bodies to pass toothless resolutions for the purpose of making political points--mostly, I think, for their effect in the political climate of Oregon itself. I do find the whole thing rather interesting and wonder about the history of such resolutions in Oregon and what intended effects their supporters might have in mind. But I'm skeptical that it is intended to be meaningful outside Oregon itself, or if so only in the most minimal way. I can almost see these recent Oregonian resolutions being meaningful in the US debate over corporate personhood, but much less so for Kashmir. But, I'm merely commenting here with some thoughts--not necessarily arguing one side or the other. Pfly (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This matter has now been reported to WP:DRN by SubQuad. See this thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The DRN discussion has been closed because the originator - SubQuad - has been determined to be evading the block of banned user Mrpontiac1. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Suresh raina.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Suresh raina.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Suresh raina.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit!

The history of Kashmir is well documented and Parvez Diwan knows nothing of this history and is not a recognized intellect. He is favored by the Semites as he is linked to them.

This edit has been reverted with edit summary. Can we discuss these, please: they are mostly poorly written and poorly sourced. . The edit summary is incorrect. Neither the whole input was poorly written, and nor poorly sourced. Some portion lack reference, but there were some very presented information too. In that case what could have done– remove the unreferenced portions and keep the good points, but the whole input has been reverted, which is discouraging! --Tito Dutta ✉ 10:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the content had previously been discussed with the contributor, who really does not seem to be making much progress in terms of understanding policy etc. One problem was that the discussion was spread all over the shop and, to be honest, still is being spread all over. For example, here. It was the continued insertion of this and related stuff that caused the contributor to suffer some blocks fairly recently.

Let's start at the top, with the Etymology section. The edit included sources (good!). These were Merriam-Webster dictionary, Walter (1895) and Pervez Dewan (1996). The first involves original research, since it is a definition of "pandit" that makes no connection to "Kashmiri Pandit"; the second is too old by far (there is a pretty good consensus on this, spread across hundreds of Indian community articles); the third was discussed at length with the contributor but we never got a satisfactory resolution regarding whether or not Dewan could be considered reliable. He certainly is not a linguist or philologist, and therefore is not an ideal source. At the end of that section, an unsourced statement was added, viz: "The term Kashmiri Pandits, different from the general hindus of Kashmir, are said to be originally Saraswat Brahmans." - this is a part of the POV that the contributor keeps trying to insert without ever sourcing it. It may well be correct, but it is exactly the sort of thing that leads to edit wars unless sourced.

A section - "Religion and Society" - then followed. Despite having read WP:MOSHEAD, per past discussions, the contributor's heading is incorrectly formatted. Easy to fix, sure, but then we have the dreaded Walter once more, and we have an unsourced statement, "Their branch of shiva worship is known as Kashmir Saivism."

Do you want me to carry on listing the issues? - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, thanks for your response and find my reply below. The etymology section, it talks about the definition of Pandit. The definition is included to explain to readers the meaning of pandit, since the word Kashmiri Pandit comprises of Kashmiri (which is perhaps easy to understand) & the other being Pandit, which is a Sanskrit word more recently used in english to denote a learned person. So, the reason to include the meaning is clear and justified. Regarding the use of Walter Lawrence, his references are used in several articles across the wiki. Walter Lawrence has been republished by other publishing houses much more recently, & the references sighted clearly explain the same. As for Pervez Dewan, he is an expert on Kashmir and it has been explained earlier by me that he was also the Divisional Comissioner of the state. He has a credible record in publishing for national and international journals. So, I propose to have his comments included in the Kashmiri Pandit article. These are reasons enough to include his writings in the citations.
Regarding the statement "The term Kashmiri Pandits, different from the general hindus of Kashmir, are said to be originally Saraswat Brahmans." I understand that not all statements or comments need citations unless they are challenged. So, would like to reconfirm if you are challenging this statements correctness ? If yes, then we can discuss the reason for it. If not, then it should be included. I understand that the policy clearly mentions this.
Also, regarding the unsourced statement "their branch of Siva worship is called Kashmir Saivism" is also correct. I think the name itself makes it very clear. However, again if you are challenging the statement, then you should add the 'citation needed' to it rather than removing the entire content.
Also, if you have any other issues then please list them out clearly. If you still disagree with the above statements, then please propose specific sections that you still feel need to be removed and let me know which ones could be added. I have asked this question to you several times earlier, however am unable to get a clear response from your side. There are many other sections in the article that you have reverted, which do not have any issues. Can you kindly reinstate the other sections immediately. Your early response will be appreciated. -Ambar (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I somewhat agree with Sitush now, the etymology of Pandit should be in the article Pandit.. not very necessary in this article, I think maximum we can write like this: Kashmiri Pandits (Kasmirir means a person who is from Kashmir and Pandit means a learned person<ref></ref>... (draft) --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be without Wiki access for most of today and until either Sunday night or Tuesday night, so I'll have to leave it until then. I leave you with a couple of thoughts. Firstly, there is no universally agreed genetic basis for the Kashmiri language - see "UCLA Languages Project: Kashmiri". UCLA International Institute. Retrieved 2012-03-24.. Secondly, the KP diaspora is considerable, probably in large part because of persecution.

So, regardless of etymology, we need a definition of "Kashmiri Pandit" that works and that puts them in the context of other Hindu communities from the Kashmir region etc. A past discussion here saw claims that all Kashmiri Hindus are Pandits but this was never adequately verifiable and the unsourced statement - "The term Kashmiri Pandits, different from the general hindus of Kashmir, are said to be originally Saraswat Brahmans" - doesn't help progress this either in one direction or the other.

I think it best to sort out the two sections that I have raised here before moving on to the other sections that were removed, otherwise there will likely be a lot of moving targets due to assumptions being made regarding sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the step by step approach. So here goes. --> Let me rework on the above suggested changes and put it in my Sandbox again. Should be completed by the time Sitush is back on the network. Also, regarding the statement "The term Kashmiri Pandits, different from the general hindus of Kashmir, are said to be originally Saraswat Brahmans", agree that the last clause 'are said to be originally saraswat brahmins' is currently not sourced. However, this is generally considered to be correct. As the concern raised by you regarding past claims that "all" Kashmiri Hindus are pandits, is not correct mostly because the definition of Kashmir has changed over a period of time to include areas of Jammu, Ladakh and other regions which were not a part of the original Kashmiri speaking region. However, the message here is that the hindu population in Kashmir (Kashmir region & not what is the political state of Jammu & Kashmir in India now) was predominantly Kashmiri Pandits & that the Kashmiri Pandit community is identified as a separate social group within the hindus of Kashmir. For the Etymology section, will modify based on both of your comments above. -Ambar (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Am also clarifying (emphasising) here that the statement by Pervez Dewan is "All Brahmans of Kashmir were Pandits" & not that all Hindus of Kashmir were Pandits. So to align better, these are two completely different things and the first can be true without there being any need to establish the second statement. -Ambar (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm back, briefly! It is good that we are talking about this but unless you can verify the statements then they should not exist. These things have been challenged before and thus they do not fall into the category of being "statements of the obvious" (an example of which would be that "Earth is not flat"). As for Dewan, well, we are back at that tricky issue of sourcing again. I know that you have given me some background about the guy and I'll try to follow it up. If all else fails, we can take it to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
do not add etymology. recently i have noticed the notable people who are Kasmiri people, Kher, Raina etc.. they are not mainly known as "teacher type learned person", so etymology will be misleading! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tito, Sitush - I have removed the etymology section & merged the contents with the header. You may find the draft in my sandbox. For the statement "all brahmans of Kashmir were Pandits" has not been challenged before. What was challenged was "all Hindus of Kashmir were Pandits", & I am not proposing to include this in the article. The former statement however is correct & sourced. Also, await your response on your follow-up of Pervez Dewan & believe that there is enough content available online to verify him as an expert on Kashmir. Feel that a WP:RSN may not be necessary if you are able to spend some time in the verification of Dewan. As for the "... are Saraswat Brahmans" statement, we may discuss this at a later time. However, kindly confirm the other content on my sandbox, specially the above clarified statements. Also, the statement on "Ksshmir Shaivism" is quite obvious & should be kept. My analogy would be 'a maneater' is someone or something that eats a man'. Pretty simple & directly linked to the meaning of the words. -Ambar (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


NDTV Link on KP Community

I came across this ndtv link (dopesheet) on Kashmiri Pandit history and their society. It puts a few things in perspective & has a few interesting points that could be used in the KP article, specially in the lede or the history section. "The term Pandit was given specifically to the Hindu Brahmin of the valley during the 15th & 16th centuries, in deference to their high education & economic status." http://www.ndtvmi.com/b5/B5_Dopesheets/Tanvi_Dope.pdf The article also has some information on Kashmiri Pandit cuisine (& kashmiri cuisine in general) & also about the dresses worn by pandits and Kashmiri muslims. Do share your opinions if this source can be used to improve the article. -Ambar wiki (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding the purpose of the lede section, which is intended to summarise an article. I doubt that this "dopeshee" is of use for historical matters. NDTV quite often appears to take their info from other sources without attribution, including Wikipedia. It may be of use for current matters re: cuisine etc. Who is the author? And what exactly is a "dopesheet"? - some sort of internal background reference document? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Just did some searching for what a dopesheet is. Take a look [[6]] (on a blog). -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir Aurel Stein's website

Came across the following link http://www.siraurelstein.org.uk/people.html which talks about quotes from notable authors on Kashmiri Pandits. Particularly the one from Pandit Anand Kaul is interesting and provides some information on KPs & their history. Unfortunately the quotes from other authors are rather racist & can be ignored, even though they would be very apt in the Indian context. Would appreciate if you could have a quick look and suggest if these sources (or rather these types of sources) would make sense for future reference. -Ambar wiki (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The quotes from others may be racist, but the quote from Kaul is generalised puffery from what appears to be a person with a conflict of interest. I doubt that his opinion counts for much in an encyclopedia entry. If we are going to show his then we would be pretty much obliged to contrast with others. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree & I guess it didn't make sense to have this kind of stuff in the main article anyway. Sorry for the bother. -Ambar wiki (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera confirms the statement: Hindoos of Kashmir are called Pandits

There are several new articles on the internet that clearly explain (in so many words) that the Hindoos of Kashmir are known as Pandits. The one by Al Jazeera here can be used to check and verify this fact. While a more accurate statement would be that the Brahmins of Kashmir (valley & not the state) are known as Pandits, however the Kashmir valley has only brahmins left and hence they all were called Pandits. That is the current nomenclature, which is also confirmed in the following report called Code of Federal regulations: Title 10: Energy written by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, US, Department of energy, which says about Kashmiris "The Hindu community of this region, the so called Kashmiri Pandits". -Ambar (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, "so-called" is somewhat dismissive, and you yourself have noted the dubious usage of the term. Not all Kashmiri Hindus are or ever were Pandits unless you can find strong evidence to verify this. Again, this is a discussion that has taken place previously - a search of the archives might be useful. - Sitush (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrongly categorised as NPOV

User Chhaviraina has wrongly classified this article as WP:NPOV. He has also made baseless and unsubstantiated claims that Suresh Raina is not a Kashmiri Pandit, when in actuality he very mush is a self professed Kashmiri Pandit. Kindly read the following article over here and another one linked here. Since Raina received a momento for the KP community, as an acknowledgement for bringing honor to the community, that is simple self declaration of being from the KP community.-Ambar (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The award does not necessarily make him a KP, and if someone else is now querying it then I think you need to go back to basics and find something better. We have discussed this before. - Sitush (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Kashmiri Brahmins are purest of this Race. - What is the source of this info? Need citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm devadas (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Kashmiri Brahmins are purest of this Race. - What is the source of this info? Need citation. --Vm devadas (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the statement until someone can come up with a decent source. Whilst it may be true, it smacks of puffery and original research. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary heading

All experts mention that Zulju was not a Mongol. To make him a Mongol is purely part of agenda of some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.3.186 (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And who are these experts to whom you refer? - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issue: No mention of 1989 Insurgency and specific attacks against Hindu minority?

This page is transcluded to receive input simultaneously from various venues

Why is there not a single line in Kashmiri Pandit article about the eruption of armed rebellion ensuing Islamic insurgency of 1989 which has specifically targeted the Kashmiri Pandits minority in recent times and violated their human rights repeatedly?[7] Nothing whatsoever about the scores of onslaughts and human rights violations by Pakistan-backed militants, why? According to a resolution passed by the United States Congress in 2006, Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and since then nearly 400,000 Pandits were either murdered or forced to leave their ancestral homes.(ref: "Pallone introduces resolution condemning human rights violations against kashmiri pandits" if that doesn't work follow →[8])

They got "trained and armed" by the ISI. Ethnic cleansing continued till a vast majority of the Kashmiri Pandits were evicted out of the valley after having suffered many acts of violence, e.g. sexual assault on women, arson, torture, extortion of property etc.([9] & "Encyclopedia of human rights" p. 306)

"Many of the 250,000 refugee Kashmiri Pandits have been living in pitiable conditions in Jammu".[10]

Other sources
  • Encyclopedia of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009. p. 306. ISBN 978-0195334029. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Catherwood, Christopher; Leslie Alan Horvitz. Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide (1st ed.). Infobase. p. 260. ISBN 978-8130903637
  • Kushner, Harvey W. (2003). Encyclopedia of terrorism. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. pp. 171–172. ISBN 0761924086.
I am not sure whether we can add it in the article of Kashmiri Pandits but we can have a seperate article something like Kashmiri Pandit Exodus or something like that--sarvajna (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is some mention in the page, but I still feel that the event is notable enough to have an article on its own --sarvajna (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It talks about "1948 Muslim riots" and "1950 land reforms". Just to clarify, I am not asking the content to be included verbatim as I have written it. We may modify it of course. But the real issues are A. the way it downplays the general predicament of Pandits and B. the amount of space dedicated to it. Even that section needs balancing. Such as there is no mention of the fact that only 3,445 pandits were still living in the Valley as of 2010 [11]. I am talking about the impact of the exponential rise of Islamic militancy since 1989 [12], [13]. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all your points and I do not see any reason why someone should object--sarvajna (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it was removed some time in the last two years because it was so POV-y and it unbalanced the article - the usual Hindu vs Muslim rubbish. Of course, the article is now unbalanced in the other direction. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml
  2. ^ >Bansi Pandit (2008). Explore Kashmiri Pandit. Dharma Publications, Library of Congress Catalog No. 2008902091. p. 20. ISBN 0-9634798-6-5. Retrieved 20 Mar 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashmiri_Pandits/Archive_1&oldid=1191816167"