Talk:Hizbul Mujahideen

Militant
I personally think that Hizbul Mujahideen are freedom fighter, and i know most Indians view them as terrorist, but the neutral term should be Kashmiri militants or Kashmiri separatist. Also the article mentions Azad Kashmir as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so Jammu and Kashmir should also be listed as Indian administered Kashmir. IP198 23:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, we'll call them Kashmiri Militant or Kashmiri Separatist, I bet they're very similar to the Balochi Militants or Balochi Separatist. And I too personally feel that BLA members are Freedom Fighters. Violet71 06:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok!, in that case it is also the same as Sikh Militant or Khalistani Separatist. In the same way when Bengali Seperatists fought against Pakistan?

Yup its the same, and just like Waziristan is semi autonomous, someday will come when maybe balochistan wins it's Freedom. Violet71 10:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC) who said that they are the freedom fighter.any democratic power can not approved them that they are the freedom fighters.please tell me conciesly that slaying of innocent people, to terrorise the common people ,to make violent action on their own man should be character for freedom fighter .in true meaning this is the group who has lost thier mental balance,their mind has been bloked. they can not decide that what is right what is wrong.if they are true freedom fighter as they claim, they continue thier struggle through the democratic medium ,they raise thier voice through the democratic way, not by gun, because gun only can make noise.

A group who bomb buses and market's are not "freedom fighters" GhostIn$hell (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

what is pakistan occupied kashmir?
what do u mean by pakistan occupied kashmir? if so y not indian occupied kashmir? kashmir is an internationally recognised disputed territory y was the word "indian state of kashmir" used? this is clear intellectual discimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.91.97 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

what about india?
balochistan will gain freedom? waziristan is semi-autonomous? what do u says about khalistan? if BLA r freedom fighters then men of the khalistan zindabad force, akali dal, bhabar dal, khalistan commando force all r freedom fighters. santh jarnail singh longowal and bhindrawale are well celebrated sikh fihters, what do u say abt tat?............. wat do u say abt the naxalites? wat abt the maoists? 55000 indian troops cant even control 2000 naxalite "freedom fighters". 700,000 indian troops cant control 10 million kashmiris and 5000 kashmiri "freedom fighters". the worlds heavily millitarized territory is kashmir 1 indian soldier to approx. 13 people, do u hav any such example in the wolrd? india in tat sense has 16 "freedom" struggles and 80 "freedom fighter" groups! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.91.97 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir?
I can't believe that Wikipedia has used words like "Azad Kashmir". Is "Azad Kashmir" a country? Have they declared independence? Has this country been recogonised by any other country which is part of the United Nations? I don't think even Pakistan which claims to provide "moral support" (Note: Supplying weapons, training various nationals including Pakistanis, funding is defined as "moral support" in Pakistan's political and military dictionary) to "Kashmiri freedom struggle" has recogonised this so called "Azad Kashmir". Pakistan names the Chief Minister of "Azad Kashmir" as Prime Minister which is like fancy designations doled out by some companies which actually does not mean what that designation is supposed to mean.

How many Kashmiri's are there in this "Azad Kashmir"? What is the demographic profile of this "Azad Kashmir"? Is there any international organisation which is willing to conduct a demographic profile check and declare that "Azad Kashmir" has only Kashmiris. In such case, India might even be ready to go for a referrendum.

Use of words like this does not augur well for a Wikipedia's reputation for being unbiased and neutral. Would really appreciate it if Wikipedia uses terms like "Pakistan Administered Kashmir" and "Indian Administered Kashmir", terminologies used by most of the countries which are not claiming stakes in this disputed area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.208.50 (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make the same arguement and changed the same term to more neutral and acceptable term Pak occupied Kashmir but my edit has been reverted by an editor claiming that I need a really good source to accuse a person of collaborating with someone. How is that even related to the topic ? AnadiDoD (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Offical Name
Hizbul Mujahideen Real and official name Is, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. Killzonefan3456 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Fighter, Terrorist, or Both?
So, the quote I see reads:

"We are fighting Pakistan's war in Kashmir and if it withdraws its support, the war would be fought inside Pakistan” —Sayeed Salahudeen (leader of Hizbul Mujahideen) It seems to me that a Pakistani freedom fighter would not be fighting against other Pakistanis in Pakistan. I would opine (with an admitted total ignorance of the truth of the matter) that Sayeed is fighting his own war for his own beliefs, and labeling it Pakistan's War so as to garner additional support and legitimacy for a cause which lacks both. Threatening to bring war to Pakistan if it withdraws its support from your cause seems like very blatant terrorism to me. But I guess it comes down to whether or not the Pakistani government legitimately reflects the will of the governed, which seems unlikely. As one of the above users states, they should "raise thier voice through the democratic way, not by gun, because gun only can make noise" (though I would add that gun can also make bullet).

Perhaps these labels do not so much define groups that behave differently, but instead define which faction is currently the more powerful. Terrorists that eventually win become known as freedom fighters, and freedom fighters that never win become known as terrorists. I (only half-jokingly) propose the term 'Freedom Terrorists' be used throughout this article instead. 192.249.47.163 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hizbul Mujahideen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130129051543/http://www.mha.nic.in:80/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=292 to http://mha.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=292
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090109055407/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/narayanan.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/narayanan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sabzar Bhat
I have included information on the (brief) time Sabzar Bhat spent as leader of the HM, as well as his death and the subsequent diplomatic protest from Pakistan. If there is a reason this content should not be included, I am open to a rational rationale. PvOberstein (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be included, but WP:WEIGHT should be followed. The Burhan Wani section needs to be expanded. The 2016 Kashmir unrest owes to his death. However, Sabzar Bhat should not be used to overshadow Burhan Wani, as per WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hizbul Mujahideen. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mha.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=292
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-2/narayanan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226142718/http://abclive.in/abclive_regional/blast_in_jammu_kashmir.html to http://abclive.in/abclive_regional/blast_in_jammu_kashmir.html

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) 14:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead
I find the predominance of sources saying that this organization is a terrorist organization. Per WP:TERRORIST we can follow what majority of sources say. I had changed the lead for providing an idea how I would like to change the lead. I recommend the such to be the new lead of the article, anyone with objection is welcome to comment.

Thanks  M L talk 14:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Indian side of the conflict thinks they are terrorists, the other side thinks they are freedom fighters.. Using either terms would, of course, mean preferring one side's POV over the other, which is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV. As it stands the preponderance of third party sources favour the use of the neutral term "militant", instead of "terrorist" The majority of your sources are Indian media/Indian government/American government sources. None of these are disinterested parties. The skewed coverage by the Indian media needs no comment, neither do the present anti-Muslim biases of the Indian and American governments. Dilpa kaur (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting sources because your source didn't said "Indian side of conflict". Very low amount of people exists on "other side" that considers them as freedom fighters. The page would become POV cruft if such false balance has been provided. To call this group a terrorist group is clearly not anti-Islamic and even if it is, it is just wholly irrelevant here.  M L talk 09:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of adding the "terrorist" label in the lead sentence. The later sentence reporting the terrorist recognition by the US and EU etc. serves just fine. It would be more useful to cover the terrorist activities conducted by the Hizbul Mujahideen in the body. The article is in dire shape overall. Just putting a bandaid in the lead doesn't improve matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@User:Kautilya3 agreed the article is really in 'dire' shape reason being some editor(s) involved here don't believe in discussion and consensus but 'proclivity' is vehement, they pose their own views on others rather than being cooperative and receptive. AnM2002 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Change title to Hizb-Ul Mujahideen
I would like to move this article to Hizb-Ul Mujahideen as that is its official name. Amazingcaptain (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you link to their official website or another official document for everyone to see? Based on Google search, Hizbul Mujahideen is the most popular spelling, followed by (in random order) Hizb ul-Mujahideen, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and Hizb Ul Mujahideen. I didn't really come across your unusual spelling, however. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Official web sites do not matter. The name used in RS does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The OP wrote about "official name", hence I am asking for a proof. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out I cannot find a source for it and that I may be in the wrong here. If the name of the article is 'Hizbul Mujahideen', then why in the lede we have it as 'Hizb-Ul Mujahideen'? Can we change it to 'Hizbul Mujahideen (or Hizb-Ul Mujahideen)'? Amazingcaptain (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan's ISI supports the outfit.
In view of repeating edits aimed at removing the sentences where the role of Pak Intelligence in training and supporting the outfit has been mentioned, it's paramount to protect the unbiased character of Wikipedia by bringing about the correct and verified information related to the article. Below is an example of verifiable sources which prove the same. Please refrain from imposing your own ideology on a platform which is meant to provide unbiased and informative views for people all around. Don't dilute the foundations of this platform. http://www.ipcs.org/index.php https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18738906 These articles clearly mention the role of ISI. Do read before editing the above mentioned parts. AnadiDoD (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You call IPCS, an organisation set up and run by the Indian military, an "unbiased source"? Wow, just wow. Do you at all know what the Kashmir conflict is, who the warring parties are, and what role the founder of IPCS played in the conflict? It's nothing wrong to seek unbiased sources, but please don't pretend you are the neutral guy here. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I used ICPS because it's already referenced in the article before. But, Alas!! U are hell-bent on blatantly misinterpreting my phrasing and cunningly weaving a false facade to project me and my edits as biased AnM2002 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Since, when has BBC become an Indian Military spokesperson ? On what 'supposed' references did you claim that globalsecurity.org's report was poorly written ? Or was it your own ' self-assessment ?'
 * Clearly, u have made up your mind to ignore opinion of others and blaming them by insinuating baseless accusations and rejecting verified references citing your bullish 'self-assessments.'Though the edit warring complaints say a lot of things ,don't they ?AnM2002 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have attached below references already cited in the article which prove my proposition. @User:Kashmiri if u find time from your edit warring do go through them. These are few of the already cited reference in the article which clearly say "Pak is said to be providing the outfit support." Being an old user its startling that @User:Kashmiri ignored them all. What could have been the reason behind ignoring the references already present in the article? Proclivity?
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

AnM2002 (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am attaching diffs of an edit I made which was reverted by @User:Kashmiri so that others can understand the issue was th ease. AnM2002 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, while I do not know about globalsecurity.org, whether it is a reliable source or not - but for the other sources, I don't see anything wrong with them. On top of that, since they're already being used in this article, I don't see why not to use them again. Amazingcaptain (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Amazingcaptain. I have been trying to make the editor mentioned in my previous replies understand the same but they keep blubbering that the statement I have added is biased (despite being duly referenced). It's startling that despite being an old user has no regard for CONSENSUS  AnM2002 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you can add it since the other person hasn't responded. If they have any issues, they can continue discussion on here. Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

i would have done it but I am sure will again revert it owing to their previous edit warring record, what would be way forward then ? AnM2002 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:GOODFAITH, mate. If any editor has any concerns they should discuss here. We started this discussion a few days ago and no one replied, so I guess we are good here. :-)

thanks for discussing the issue I'll make the proposed edit and reference it with already used citations mentioned above. hasn't replied so let it be though i am half expecting a revert as soon as i publish my edit but still thanks for the help. AnM2002 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I am attaching below the edit link just in case again decides to revert my edit (without discussion as before) to serve as a reference to other editors. do take a look. AnM2002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is extremist a proper descriptor for the HuM?
Someone recently replaced "separatist militant group" with "extremist militant group" in the lede. Do others think this is a proper descriptor? Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazingcaptain, This is part of a much larger debate which can also be seen at Talk:Riyaz Naikoo. Do you think this deserves a single coordinated debate rather than one that is spread across multiple pages? DTM (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Separatist?
I removed the word "separatist" from the lead sentence. As a cursory look at separatism shows, the term means seeking independence or separate existence. Hizbul Mujahideen doesn't want that. There are no scholarly sources using the term for Hizbul Mujahideen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)