Talk:History of Kashmir/Archive 1

1847-1947
This article should have more information about the period between 1847 and 1947 as this period of the Dogra's, notably Gulab Singh and Hari Singh provide a part of the context of the conflict that originated after that period. In this period the so called Dogra's ruled the area as a Hindu-state with privileges for Hindu's and increasing marginalisation of the musliminhabitants. A good book with lots of sources which handles about the context of this period, especially with regard to the rights of the 95% of the citizens that were not hindu, the peaceful resistancemovement in the 1930's and the interest of the leaders for their posessions in Punjab compared to the interest they had in their own land Kashmir, is:
 * Rai, M. Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects, Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (2004) ISBN 1850657017

My knowledge of english is not so good that I consider myself able to write about it, so if somebody could look into it, it would be greatly appreciated.--Hardscarf 08:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the decolonization section could use a bit of work. From my limited knowledge of the partition process much seems to be left out

Religion of Maharaja Hari Singh
Was Maharaja Hari Singh really a Hindu? His last name seems to imply he was Sikh. Kitabparast 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Singh is surname of many communities, some of them are sikhs. He was realy real a Hindu :) 70.64.14.114

Etymology
The etymology doesnt seem to include the more accepted root of the word kashmir.since sage kashyap is said to have formed this land it was referred to as "kashyap more " which ended up being kashmir over time.The definition given is less accepted than this one.strange that this isnt there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.167.221 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandal deletions of Cited content Special:Contributions/86.133.57.119
Please do not delete cited content as you have done on this article viz Revision as of 01:20, 9 July 2008 Cheers Intothefire (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Forced conversion to Islam?
This section is basically an opinion with no supporting facts. Muslims with Hindu last names is not proof of forced conversion. Forceful conversion from Hinduism to Islam is more of a myth in the minds of Hindu Chauvanists. It was the exception and not the rule (if it ever happened at all). Even when the Sultans, as in the case of Sikandar Butshikan, where intolerant and cruel towards Hindus, they were not forced to convert. If forced conversions were official policy then the percentage of Muslims in Kashmir would have been closer to 100%.

There are other cases in the world which proove that Islam can spread rapidly without any force being involved. For example, Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population at around 200 million, yet no Muslim army ever invaded that country to convert the locals. And Indonesia is not unique in this respect in south east asia. The same is true of Malaysia and the Island of Mindanao.

Similarly, there are about 50 million Muslims in China, and a greater number in Russia. Yet no Muslim army has ever set foot in these regions. In addition, Muslims ruled Spain for over 700 years, yet they were never in a significant majority there. 700 hundred years was enough time to convert the whole country, but the Catholics and Jews were not forced to change their religion. The opposite did happen when Christians reconqueed Spain, and there were no Muslims to be found there. Another example is that of the Turks who ruled over eastern Europe for centuries. Yet today the region is almost exclusively Christian.

Even today, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, even though Muslims are politically one of the weakest groups in the world. In the United States (my home country) more than 2 million people have converted to Islam in the last 30 years or so. This, despite Islam's highly negative perception in American society, and no worldly incentive to convert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.215.174 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

20 million converted to Islam in 30 years in the US ? Do you have any official statistics?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.39.241 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This section takes into view all the 'possible' reasons for mass conversion during the 14th Century & is at all not biased. It does not make any sense to compare different geographis ( Indonesia or present day US). The topic of discussion here is " mass conversionsduring the 14th Century Kashmir. Mass conversion to an alien religion is almost always forced...I wonder what makes you disbelieve that ! Also, there're enough historical records to prove that . Kindly take a look at the formal & informal records of various historians.

UNNECESSARY DETAILS. SHOWS OPINIONS AND CONJUNCTURE
This whole section 'Islamic conversion in Kashmir' is 1. out of place (it may as well be a separate subject if well researched and scholarly). 2. It lacks the typically high scholarly standards of wikipedia because: it speaks of opinions and conjunctures and lacks citations. The fact that this section of supposed history speaks critically of both Hindus and Muslims does not make it necessarily unbiased. It falls very short of scholarly standards and is therefore disputable and its neutrality is seriously questionable. The inclusion of this section undermines the otherwise well written and somewhat researched article. It's a shame it had to be so. I hope the entire section is either removed or very seriously brought up to the scholarly standards one expects from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.168.132 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the above commentator needs to seriously substantiate his claims. For example "Mass conversion to an alien religion is almost always forced...I wonder what makes you disbelieve that !" This is a highly opinionated comment. What does the author mean by 'almost always'? Posing this statement as an axiomatic fact does not mean the author is resolved of his duty to provide accurate and specific historic references. "Also, there're enough historical records to prove that . Kindly take a look at the formal & informal records of various historians." I hope the writer kindly cites these 'formal and informal records' of his 'various historians.' Just posing a statement as an axiom and capping it by reference to 'formal and informal records of various historians' is a classic use of sophistic argument. It speaks of utter unfaithfulness of any scholarly ideals from any age. Kindly substantiate your comments and revise the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.168.132 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has undertaken even a cursory reading of history will agree that Islam was spread by persuasion, aggression and coercion in equal measure. That is not to say that, there were, or are no voluntary conversions to Islam. But if the statement that Islam was propagated by forcible conversions is a blanket generalization, the argument that it did not, is equally guff in nature and the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. One has to just take a look at the miserable conditions of non-Muslim minorities in the Islamic countries to extrapolate the real story. Non-Muslims, in such countries are relegated to second-class citizenry and are perennially in fear for their survival and this in the 21st century, when the so called liberal values and technology are at its zenith! One could very well make out what could have happened in those dark ages, with out much difficulty, when might was perceived as right. It is a false notion that forcible conversion equals conversion at the threat of a sword to your throat. It could be a graduated psychological attrition by the slow, but unrelenting piling up societal pressure until such a time as you are left with no option, but to join up. (59.88.79.244 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Categorisation
Should there be a Category:History of Kashmir to include Category:Jammu and Kashmir, Category:History of Azad Kashmir, Category:History of Gilgit-Baltistan and Category:Kashmir conflict, as well as articles such as this which deal with the whole history of Kashmir or periods before the establishment of Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)? It's quite difficult to get an overview at present. --Mhockey (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now done. --Mhockey (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to the following lines about Hari Singh
--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

''The Maharajah Hari Singh never represented the will of his subjects, creating tension between the Hindu rulers and the Muslim population of Kashmir. Muslims in Kashmir detested him, as they were heavily taxed and had grown tired of his insensitivity to their religious concerns. The Dogra rule (the name of the municipal governments) had excluded Muslims from the civil service and the armed services. Islamic religious ceremonies were taxed. Historically, Muslims were banned from organizing politically, which would only be tolerated beginning in the 1930s. In 1931, in response to a sermon that had tones of opposition to the government, the villages of Jandial, Makila, and Dana were ransacked and destroyed by the Dogra army, with their inhabitants burned alive.''

Excuse me! How can you write such things about the former head of a state without any citation? I think and am convinced that this section has been written by an radical person with mere colloquial knowledge about the subject! I this matter needs to be escalated with immediate effect. I shall also remove that part of it! --Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not forced conversation of Hindus?
--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I draw the attention of the Mods and Admins to the following article: Persecution of Hindus ... It's a well written article and has has citations in proper places. That passage needs to be re-established. I shall escalate this matter to the Mods immediately but not edit it yet!

--Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of controversial and possibly fictional sections
Please read the discussion. I have had pointed out that a number of controversial statements in this article are without any citation. Anything without citation is a fiction and there is no place for fiction in wikipedia. I'll therefore comment/remove them. An administrator may later re-establish them if found necessary!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the objection I'd raised after appropriately commenting the controversial parts as stated earlier.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Early History
The early history of Kashmir should be better compiled/expanded.

No mention of Kamboj is mentioned in the authentic history of Kashmir Rajataringini. Also Rajapuri is a common name given to many kingdoms, though in this region of India it refers to modern rajauri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

'''No Kamboj is mentioned in the Rajataringini the authentic history of Kashmir. Thus this is planted to create a confusion in the history of Kashmir.'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Shahmira was not from swat. Check your facts. Hint he was a Kshatriya descended from the house of Arjuna. Read: Jonaraja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add a reference to the Kashmiri king Lalitaditya Muktapida, who ruled from 724 to 760 and conquered most of Northern India and Central Asia. During the time of Lalitaditya, Kashmiri rule apparently covered an area from Tibet in the east to Iran and Turkey in the west and from Central Asia in the north to Orissa and the seashores of Dwarka in the south. I would have to fact-check that first - but maybe someone knows more?

Does anyone have more detailed information about the Dynasties of ancient Kashmir? Might be a good starting point.

MaxNemo 20:32 GMT, 2 November 2007 Some information about the early history of Kashmir from Kalhan could be used here. Seems Kalhan was quite reliable in his descriptions. The Islamisation of Kashmir remains somewhat disputed. Afghans, even pre-Islamic, had been routinely attacking the hill areas of south Asia because it was here that the propserous temples existed. In due course of time one of them simply decided to remain here as a ruler rather than to return to the inhospitable climes of their motherland. However, this would not be adequate to blame the destruction of the ancient artefacts of Kashmir. The geologist Bilham has mentioned giant earthquakes just prior to the advent of Islam in Kashmir that destroyed all that was of any value. Perhaps the movement of the people to Islam was partly in response to that calamity? I would love if someone could throw more light on this aspect of the ancient history of Kashmir.Uvav (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)uvavUvav (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ISLAM IN KASHMIR
'''Shahmira was surely not from Swat. This is documented from historians of his period. He certainly originated from close to the Kashmir Valley. His grandfather had converted to Islam and he belonged to the Kshatriya caste deriving his lineage from Arjuna. His precise lineage is well documented. His whole lineage from Hindus is well documented. also shahamira did not marry kota rani, she rather than marry him committed suicide and presented her intestines to him. '''Richina (a Botta=in Sanskrit means with Mongol features) from Ladakh was the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir. He wanted to become a Hindu but the Hindus did not accept him so he took up Islam under the influence of Bul Bul Shah. After a short reign he was liquidated.''' '''ALL LIES IN YOUR HISTORY OF KASHMIR. SHAHMIRA WAS NOT FROM SWAT NOR A PATHAN. NET DID HE MARRY KOTA RANI. KOTA RANI COMMITTED SUICIDE AND GAVE HER INTETINES TO SHAH MIRA S A WEDDING GIFT. SHAH MIRA SEIZED THE THRONE OF KASHMIR BY TEACHERY. ALSO DURING THIS PERIOD THE PATHANS WERE SCARED OF THE KASHMIRIS>'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.243.96 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also why put photgraphs of Ladakhis, Lahakhis are not Kashmiris nor vice-versa.

I agree Shahmira came out of a Hindu Kshatriya family who had converted to Islam and was not a Pathan. Also The Kashmiris helped the Afhghan Shahi king against Mahmud of Ghazni, whom the Kashmiris eventually defeated. Quite often Afghanistan was invaded by Kashmir.  No mention of Khamboj in Rajataringini thus we never heard of them in Aryan Kashmir.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Rasool Wani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.14.67 (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

KAMBOJ
Kalhanas makes no memntion of Kamboj thus we consider this a foreign plant in the Kashmiri history.''' '''Afghanistan's history is complicated. Kashmir and Afghanistan had good relations though both people had cultural differences. A deep study of history will reveal that Afghanistan was more often under Kashmir than vice-versa. Also Queen Didda of Kashmir was of the Afghan Royal family.''' Afghanistan only emerged as a country due to Ahmad Shah Durrani.

Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems we can not edit the inter-wiki section, why ?
I constate that trying to link this article with fr:Histoire du Cachemire. I think the pb is not the semi protection of this article, so where is the bug ? Sincerely. --Epsilon0 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the article
'''Note Wikipedia history of Kashmir is significantly Rubbish. Read Rajatarangini, Bamzai, Mohibul Hasan, etc. Hindu Kashmir defeated Mahmud of Ghazni. Yusuf Shah Chak defeated Akbar. Akbar entered Kashmir by deceit. Afghans were beaten often by Kashmiri and even Durrani was defeated twice but came in the third time with help of some Kashmiris. Raja Sukhjiwanmal made Durrani's army wear dunce caps! Even then more often the Afghans had little control. Note Budshah had a huge empire and so did Lalitaditya before him. '''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The article in Wikipedia is agenda oriented meant to change history for agendas. Rajataringini tells us precise history up to the 12th century A.D. After this Jonaraja and Srivara update this Rajataringini. These days any one one can write the name Singh but still can not become a Singh. The Kshatriyas are the original Singhs. Maharaja Gulab Singh a great warrior was a Kshatriya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.98.201 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Map
Copied from User talk:Kautilya3

Would you advise keeping this map on the History of Kashmir? If not, I welcome you to remove it. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC))
 * I myself don't see a serious problem with it. The Pala king became subsidiary to Lalitaditya and even joined him in his Digvijaya. There is a very good discussion in Andre Wink's Al-Hind, vol. 1. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's what I thought. But another user deleted this map. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC))
 * I haven't read anything yet from any noted historian that "Bengal came under Kashmiri rule" as shown in the map. Please, provide the source of the map or give a scaled map from authentic publications. And,, 1)even Wink quotes Kalhana(the royal court poet of Kashmir) on the issue of Lalitaditya's Digvijaya., 2) Gaudas were not Palas, 3) Stein called the description "manifestly legendary". Ghatus (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Arabs
Arabs who were mighty during the 7-8 century A.D. were defeated by the Karkotas. No Arab army even ever came close to the Kingdom of Kashmir let alone the Vale of Kashmir. ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lot of fake history. Shahmira was not a Pakhtun nor did Kambhojas rule Kashmir.

'''Fake history being pushed via Facebook etc. Mongols never invaded Kashmir. They had plans from neighboring Afghanistan but never materialized. We know who are behind these fake stories the aim to try to corrupt this Aryan Race by fake data. Kashmir was never conquered by Mongols nor did Mongols ever come to Kashmir. Authentic history.'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.176 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mohd. Iqbal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.226.36 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rajataringini does not tell us of Kambhojas ruling Kashmir, thus this surely fake planted data.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.175 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

All false propaganda. Never did Kamboj people rule Kashmir. Read Rajataringini. Kashmir is the original home of Aryans and crown of Aryavarta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.232.8 (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alain Daniélou A Brief History of India
It might be a good idea to fix the reference to use an earlier publisher, as Inner Traditions is fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added a mention of the original French version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020184914/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Kashmir to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Kashmir
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326182755/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-028.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-028.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Changing the history
Why change the history of kashmir if it does not suit you? It can not change things. Kamboj's never ruled Kashmir see Nilmatapurana or RT. Also Dughlat was killed by the Kashmiris. Akbar's large forces were defeated by the Kashmiris more than once. He arrived in Kashmir by deceit. The Afghans though having huge numbers under Durrani were no match for the Kashmiris, they defeated the Afghans led by Raja Sukh Jiwan. It was later when the Kashmiris rebelled against the Raja that Durrani's troops did arrive.'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.111.90 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Abisares was not King of Kashmir Valley, but may be of Kashmiri origin who ruled a region close to Kashmir. Also Kambojas never are known to have ruled JKashmir in the authentic Kashmiri history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC) HISTORY OF KASHMIR A SUMMARY AND REALITY Some genuine facts on Kashmir from a Kashmir. My Prophet (pbuh) to only look for gtruth- 1)	All ancient classics tell us that we are about the northernmost tip of Aryavarta. 2)	Kashmir always had very few people but was difficult to conquer due to her location and the physical and intelligence criterion of her people. Kashmir has produced great thinkers in the ancient and modern times. 3)	Mahmud of Ghazni was soundly defeated by the Kashmir. 4)	The huge army of Akbar was destroyed by the Chaks (Chaks were from Gurez region) and Akbar entered Kashmir by deceit. Before him Rinchin and Dughlat was liquidated by the Kashmiris. 5)	The Afghans was were again soundly defeated by the Kashmir and the surviving Afghans were sent back with dunce caps mounted on donkeys. Durrani with his huge army could only enter Kashmir as the majority Muslim population was not happy with Raja SukhJiwan the Hindu ruler. 6)	The Jat-Sikhs were brought by Kashmiri nobles such as Raja Birbal Dhar and Mthe Dogra Rajput Maharaja Gulab Singh as an Afghan governor had gone harsh. Many nobles of the Afghans were Pandits. Later many nobles and army officers in Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s court were again Kashmiri Pandits. 7)	Maharaja Gulab Singh started his rule in Kashmir due to the fact that after the death of Maharaja Ranjit Singh the Sikh kingdom disintegrated and the Rajputs and Jats went to war. Before the Anglo-Sikh war the British promised Maharaja Gulab Singh if he remained neutral they would not interfere in his Kingdom. However he was forced to pay compensation for the British war Effort. Again the Dogras and Pandits dominated the Valley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.31.129 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

KALHANA DOES MENTION KAMBOJA/KAMBOJ RULING KASHMIR IN HIS RAJATARANGINI. FAKE HISTORY BEING PLANTED
Kalhana in his Rajatrangini does mention that  king Lalitāditya Muktapīḍa made war with the neighboring Kambojas and Tukharas etc (See: Kalhana’s Rajatarangini 4.163-65).

''The Kambojas were in occupation of Kashmir in epic times and afterwards. Their region included Hazara, Abhisara, Punch of SW Kashmir and it went as far as Kabul and Kafiristan (Kapisa). However, their Metropolis was at Rajapura (MBH 7/4/6). The Mahabharaya asserts:  “Karana Rajapuram gatva Kamboja Nirjitastvaya” ( MBH verse 7/4/6; See further confirmation in verse 7/91/39-40). Rajapura of Mahabharata is modern Rajauri  [See: Political History of Ancient India, 1996, p 132 seq, Dr H. C. Raychaudhury, Dr B. N. Mukerjee; A History of India, p 269-71, N. R. Ray, N. K. Sinha]. It is Ho-lo-she-pu-lo Chinese Buddhist Monk Hiuen Tsang (~629-645 CE).''

Other noted scholars also stress: “The confederation of the Kambojas may have stretched from the valley of Rajauri in the south-western part of Kashmir to the Hindu Kush Range; in the south–west the borders extended probably as far as the regions of Kabul, Ghazni and Kandahar, with the nucleus in the area north-east of the present day Kabul, between the Hindu Kush Range and the Kunar river, including Kapisa, possibly extending from the Kabul valleys to Kandahar” ( See: The Peoples of Pakistan: An Ethnic History, 1971, pp 64-67, Yuri Vladimirovich Gankovski; Hisstory of the Pathans, 2002, p 11, Haroon Rashid; See also Persica-9, p 92, fn 81, Michael Witzel, Harvard University).

'''King Lalitaditya Muktapeda ruled Kashmir from 724 CE–760 CE. The Mahabharata’s period is much earlier (950 BCE per Pargiter). It is interesting that the northern Kamboja (called Parama Kamboja) is attested as Kiumito by the same Chinese author (Hiuen Tsang), which lied north of the Hindukush, east of Bactria (Bahlika).''

Hope this well help clarify the matter and satisfy the anon.

signed by 71.193.5.163 (talk)

Kasmir Marathas
Durrain's afghan rule in Kashmir was interupted by maratha rule till their defeat in third battle of panipat see third battle of panipat wiki page சதீஸ் (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, note that "interrupted" is not the same as "interfered". You are welcome to readd it with a reliable source. If there is no source, it will get deleted again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Greeks
Kashmir Valley was never ruled by Abisares or the Greeks. May be Abisares was a king outside the Valley of Kashmir. Who won or lost in the battle between Maharaju Puru and Alexander no honest person can answer. It is certain both survived this fierce battle and Alexander withdrew. This is genuine history. Greeks ruled Persia and what is Pakistani Punjab now. Chandragupta Maurya defeated and seized also Eastern Iran and what are regions of Afghanistan now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.180 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Afghans
Why is there only a passing reference to the rule of afghans on Kashmir?

"The Mughal conquered Kashmir and added it in 1586 to his Afghan province Kabul Subah, but Shah Jahan carved it out as a separate subah (imperial top-level province), with seat at Srinagar"

I am changing this to mean the mughal emperor akbar because this sentence is wrong.

there should be a separate section about the rule and control the afghans had over kashmir. I am going to research it a bit and present here for deliberations Mhveinvp (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Section on Etymology
The portion talks of the rule of Pancalas in Kashmir. This is based on a quote from an artice by Ratanlal Joshi. Ratanlal Joshi is not an authoritative source. His own article quotes no sources. He is clearly biased and driven by Hindu religious fanaticism. This portion must either have an alternative source or be removed.Sanjayx (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
The maharajas who ruled J&K from 1846-1949 were:- GULAB SINGH (1846-1847) RANBIR SINGH(1857-1855) PRATAP SINGH(1885-1925) HARI SINGH     (1925-1949) Anshul5337 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Treaties on Kashmir
Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the |Indian Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper |'The Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes ''"While the  date,  and  perhaps  even  the  fact,  of  the accession to India of the State of Jammu  &  Kashmir in  late  October  1947  can  be  questioned,  there  is  no  dispute  at  that time   any   such   accession   was   presented   to   the   world at large   as   conditional   and provisional. It  was  not  communicated  to  Pakistan  at  the outset  of  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in  the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir,  nor  was  it presented  in  facsimile  to  the  United  Nations  in  early  1948  as  part  of  the  initial  Indian reference  to  the  Security  Council.  The  1948  White  Paper  in  which  the  Government  of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the  Instrument  of  Accession  as  claimed  to  have  been  signed  by  the  Maharajah: instead, it reproduces  an  unsigned  form  of  Accession  such  as,  it  is  implied,  the  Maharajah  might have  signed. To  date   no   satisfactory   original   of   this   Instrument   as   signed   by  the Maharajah has  been  produced: though  a  highly  suspect  version,  complete  with  the false date  26 October 1947,  has  been  circulated  by  the  Indian  side  since  the  1960s. On the present evidence  it  is  by  no means clear  that  the  Maharaja  ever  did  sign an Instrument of Accession.''

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

''It is  now  absolutely  clear  that  the  two  documents  (a) the Instrument of Accession, and  (c)  the  letter  to  Lord  Mountbatten,  could  not  possibly  have  been  signed  by the Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the  Maharajah  of Jammu  &  Kashmir was  travelling  by  road  from  Srinagar  to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime  Minister,  M.C.  Mahajan,  who  was  negotiating  with  the Government of India,  and  the  senior  Indian  official  concerned  in  State  matters,  V.P.  Menon, were still in New  Delhi  where  they  remained  overnight,  and  where  their  presence  was  noted  by many observers. There was  no  communication  of  any  sort  between  New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and  Mahajan  set  out  by  air  from  New  Delhi  to  Jammu  at about  10.00 a.m.  on  27  October; and  the  Maharajah  learned  from  them  for  the  first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key  point,  of  course,  as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that  these  documents  could  only  have  been  signed  after  the  overt  Indian  intervention  in the  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the  Indian  troops  arrived  at  Srinagar  air  field,  that State   was   still   independent. Any  agreements   favourable   to   India   signed   after   such intervention  cannot  escape  the  charge  of  having  been  produced  under  duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"''

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The | Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia |United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, |United Nations Security Council Resolution 39,|UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute, |United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN | archives already. If you look at the page | Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. We need to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020
The article mentions 1947 massacre as a riot under the 1947 heading. Please allow me to correct it. The change will be from "huge riots" to massacre. Regards 4444Jake (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see WP:NPOV and provide sufficient reliable sources which describe this as "massacre". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 80 needs to be added
Is there any particular reason why United Nations Security Council Resolution 80 is not mentioned in this article? --2607:FEA8:A380:3173:9555:98:268A:352D (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent reversion
Hi, just a note about your reversion of 's edits here. You are right that the information isn't accompanied with a source, but both purported massacres have their own Wikipedia pages with sources and fit the timeline. If the accuracy of the information isn't in question, perhaps it would be more appropriate to add a "citation needed" tag, rather than eliminating the edits entirely? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an instance of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. has been doing such indiscriminate edits all over the the Kashmir pages, and I don't have the time to "improve" all of them. I have invited him to discuss on the talk pages in a couple of places, but he has not yet done so.
 * This particular edit also destroys WP:INTEGRITY by inserting new content under a citation, and thereby making it appear as if it sourced. Such violatations of INTEGRITY cannot be permitted under any circumstance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can't speak for the other edits because I haven't seen them, but I posted here because this one seemed constructive to me. It fit well into the flow of the paragraph and added helpful context. Regarding the second part: I think the better solution in the interests of the article is to move the citation so that it's clear that it doesn't apply to new material and then add a "citation needed" tag for the remainder. If you're busy, I'm happy to do that - I just thought it would be better to talk to you rather than revert on my own.


 * I'm gathering that there's something going on that's bigger than just this article, but I'm not clear on what your concern is exactly. If you are concerned about Hindian1947's conduct, a better avenue might be to take him up at the appropriate forum on conduct-based infractions. If you're concerned that he's inflated the content, you could challenge the two wiki-articles by saying that no notable source has yet used the term "Rajouri massacre of 1947" or "Mirpur massacre of 1947", which means that in turning them into articles, Hindian1947 has synthesised sources and violated WP:NOR. But that is only a matter of appropriate labelling, and the correct forum for that discussion is on the talk pages of those articles. I still think this material should be reinstated. (with or without the wikilink, and if you like, without using the words "massacre"). Hope to hear what you think. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am afraid it was not a constructive edit. It is propaganda, which is not a purpose of Wikipedia. In order to mention these events on this page, needs to produce a History of Kashmir source and show us how they fit into the history of Kashmir. It is not a high priority at the moment. I am still trying to figure out the issues surrounding the Rajouri massacre. Once I do, I might have a better idea. It is not as straightforward as you suggest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case, I will let the matter rest so that you can work on it or Hindian1947 can justify their edit. Thanks for engaging. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
Get started Open in app Mudhan Shabir Mudhan Shabir

Oct 26, 2020·2 min read

Image for post An EXCERPT from a research paper authored by DAHAN LEVI and Fida M. Hassnain. " KASHMIR owes its name to "KASH" TRIBE and Not to mythical KASHYAPA or KASHAP RISHI..
 * KASHMIR owes its name to KASH TRIBE*

The valley of Kashmir is known by its inhabitants as "Kasheer" because it was a settlement of a race known as "Kash' or "Cush" . "Kashur" means those who eat meat…… Kash or Cush was the son of Ham and a grandson Noah(A.S). He was the founder of the Kash or Cush tribe, which settled in the east. This tribe founded Kash, a village near Bagdad. These people named rivers, mountains, cities and countries after the name of their ancestor Kash or Cush. In Mesopotamia, they founded a kingdom and the Kashan river in that country is a testimony of this fact. Kashmar, a village near Nishapur in Iran, was also founded by them. This tribe also proceeded towards Central Asia and founded many settlements. Kashmohra, a village in Merv; Kash, a village in Bokhara; Kashband and Kashania, villages in Samarkand, Kashgar, in the Chinese Turkistan, were their settlements in central Asia. In Mesopotamia, the tribe founded the towns of Kashan, Kashaf and Kashi. They also moved towards Afghanistan and founded settlements at Kashkar, Kashhil, Kashek and Kashu. While the Hindu-Kush mountains are named after them, they also founded a settlement south of this mountain range known as Kashmor. It was Babar the founder of the Moghul dynasty in India who pointed out in his memoirs that the etymology of the word Kashmir is derived from the Kash or Cush tribe which inhabited the valley. This tribe settled in the region now known as Kashtawar, District of Kashmir. Crossing the Pir-Panjal range, these people spread in the valley of Kashmir. Kush-tawar, in the Pulwama District, Kashnag, a spring in the Islamabad District, and Isae-Kush village bear the name of this tribe. According to an old tradition (propagated by indian historians), the name Kashmir is derived from Kashyapa. However. there is no linguistic evidence to support this idea, because the whole fable of Kashyapa and his progeny is astronomical. Had Kashyapa drained the valley of its waters or found his progeny in any part of the valley, its capital would have been termed as Kash-yapa-nagar or Kash-yapa-pur, as is the way with the etymologies of that period. According to the latest geological researches, it has been established that the valley of Kashmir was a lake millions of years back and its water found its outlet by the volcanic* agency through a narrow gorge at Baramulla." Lone Numan Ishaq (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You'll have to provide the actual text you want changed with the citations, because as it stands it's incredibly unlikely anyone is going to try and parse the excerpt you posted and figure out what to change, and where. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please provide the WP:Full citation for your source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Durrani Empire
, I am afraid much of your new content is not verified by the source (e.g., it doesn't say Sukhjiwal Mal "revolted") even if it can be verified, it does not appear WP:DUE in a History of Kashmir article. Is this some old content that you are reinstating? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair reading of the situation, so I've altered the altered the text ("revolted" changed to "rebelled"), added a citation that explicitly describes a rebellion, and added an additional footnote. Now there is a source noting Mal's change in allegiance, a source describing this action as a rebellion against the Durrani, and a source specifying the year of Mal's defeat. I've also (prudent given the SYNTH concern) scaled back content and sources imported from other Wikipedia articles; while these sources are likely to meet WP:RS and I would like to assume their adders did their due diligence in citing, some were difficult to track down and therefor difficult to verify what they were being used to support. Now at-least all of the sources used can be confirmed as accessible. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Templates_for_discussion, and probably best not use either Indian or Pakistani English specifically as choosing one or the other could be inflammatory. 81.2.252.231 (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done some time after this request. 15 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Misleading and biased opening paragraph
"In the first half of the 1st millennium, the Kashmir region became an important centre of Buddhism and later of Hinduism; later in the ninth century, Shaivism arose which saw a major decline to Kashmiri Buddhism, during the era of Hindu king Mihirkula, Buddhists were massacred, and Shaivism was glorified. Islam then came to Kashmir during 13th to 15th century by sufi saints and led to the eventual decline of the Kashmir Shaivism in Kashmir"

This the opening paragraph which has been written citing no references, and with very heavy personal bias. It screams propaganda. The injection 'during the era of Hindu king Mihirkula, Buddhists were massacred, and Shaivism was glorified' has been added forcefully. As the article on 'Mihirkula' also states he was a Huna king. He wasn't born into any of the hindu castes. He was opposed by kashmiri Brahmins themselves. He was from Alphon huns dynasty who practiced different religions and gave patronage accordingly. The identity of Hindu has been forced on him to set a narrative. The paragraph on purpose omit the heavy persecution and iconoclasm by Skandar Shah Miri, but somehow labels a Hun king as hindu and adds it. Both Shaivism and bhudhism had grown side by side even in Ashoka's riegn. This opening paragraph is highly misleading and heavily biased. Please rectify it. Trueroad7 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * the dominance of Buddhism in Kashmir after it was introduced to the valley by Ashoka is an established fact,the 4th great Buddhist council was also held in Kashmir.Mihirkulas rule and presecution of Buddhists in Kashmir as well as the genocide of Buddhists in the surrounding regions chiefly in Baltistan is also a well established fact.So is the rise of Militant Hinduism . KasheerParast (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Change following incorrect sentence.
Change "'In 1339, Shah Mir became the first Muslim ruler of Kashmir' to 'Rinchan (Sadruddin Shah) met Bulbul Shah and converted to Islam. The first-ever Buddhist ruler of Kashmir now became the first-ever Muslim ruler of Kashmir. In 1339, Shah Mir inaugurated the Shah Mir dynasty, the first Muslim dynasty to rule Kashmir.'" Shoaibagoo (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Sources are at Rinchan. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
Jhangir carved kashmir as subah according to padam bhushan irfan habib book atlas of kashmir please correct this. 2405:205:B082:D641:0:0:2AC2:E0A5 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)