Talk:Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019

Impact
It's good to gather some sources that talk specifically about this reorganization (and specifically Ladakh), because most of the contemporary sources are focused on the violence/370A issue.
 * Sri Lankan PM's commentary: "Buddhists are 70 per cent of Ladakh's population and it will be the first Indian state with Buddhist majority". Also, "The move sparked jubilation in Buddhist-dominated Leh town for coming close to the fulfilment of their long standing demand."
 * Social media disinformation by anti-Modi partisans, incorrectly stating that Jammu is becoming a separate state.
 * Former J&K CM promises that the split will lead to special status for Chenab valley and Pir Panjal Range. Telegraph article explains more about the Chenab and Panjal issue.
 * From the first source: "This decision was long due as the Ladakhi people have been requesting for a separate division for quite a while now. Apparently, it used to be very inconvenient for them to travel all the way to Srinagar to get any official work done."

체셔🐈 (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cross-party (BJP and Congress) and unanimous local support in Ladakh: 'Ladakh Buddhist Association president P T Kunzang, former MP Thupstan Chhewang, Congress leader and former MLA Tsering Samphel, MLC Chering Dorjay, Congress district president Tsering Namgyal and BJP president Dorjay Angchuk all joined together in hailing the decision, termed the move as a "historic" one.'

Discussion
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.-Nizil (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of background information
Please can you give examples of how the information removed here does not match the sources? Since your last removal of this material, I have read and added four new sources that verify the basic background (such as the geographical location of Jammu and Kashmir) and your reversion of this change in the space of one minute indicates you are not judging my edits in good faith. SFB 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, here is your content:

You want to assert in Wikipedia's voice that "This was the cause of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-48", citing a newspaper article and a book extract? What is "This" supposed to mean anyway? What did these sources say which justifies this grandiose conclusion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you feel that is too conclusive a statement (I think it's clear that unrest during the period of Partition was the cause of the 1947 war, and so does the Daily Telegraph source and any other source you wish to consult, but OK to disagree on that) this problem can easily be resolved by rephrasing this as:


 * Is this an acceptable rephrasing for you? SFB 19:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I just picked one egregious example. But every sentence you wrote is equally broken. There is simply no point analysing it. I suggest you read your sources more closely and understand what they say, instead of imaging your own theories. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please can you advise of the further issues so we can resolve them? Can you provide citations that support an alternative interpretation? I added the background section as a basic, non-controversial overview of Jammu and Kashmir based on the sources I have listed. It's impossible to work collaboratively if one party adds detail and citations which they believe to be correct and non-controversial, and another party simply reverts that without clarifying which parts are incorrect. To take one example, I am finding it difficult to understand why you describe as "broken" or "my own theory" a (cited) sentence stating that Jammu and Kashmir lies between India, Pakistan and China. I'm deliberately looking to avoid expanding on the finer and trickier details of J&K because I wanted to avoid the editor conflict we are experiencing now. Also note that all the things I've added above are also reflected (and cited) in the other articles linked, so I find it strange that these could be interpreted as my original research. SFB
 * Some sort of background would be nice, but the proposed version contains some errors. I have hopefully rectified those (with source help from Jammu and Kashmir) and would suggest that both of you take a look:
 * The Kashmir region is situated between the nation states of India, Pakistan and China. Following the end of British rule in the region, and the subsequent Partition of India in 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh, ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, was faced with indecision whether to join India or Pakistan, or remain independent. In October 1947, citizens from the western districts of the State and Pashtun tribesmen from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan invaded the State with the backing of Pakistan. The Maharaja initially fought back but appealed for assistance to the Dominion of India,  who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede Kashmir to India. Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, acceding the region to India. India entered the battle on behalf of Kashmir, resulting in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. After the war and a failed UN resolution, Indian and Pakistani forces withdrew to the Line of Control.  In 1950, India passed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which gave Jammu and Kashmir special status.


 * My only concern is that there would be too much detail not directly related to the article topic. DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm happy with that. Kind of agree on the level of detail, which is what I was trying to avoid by stating "unrest within the majority Muslim state" rather than going into the specific state and non-state actors involved. I think this level of detail is essential to helping the reader understand why the bill exists, the intentions behind it, and the parties involved. We shouldn't expect readers of this article to already have a grasp of centuries of South Asian history. SFB

Ok, now we have at least the sequence of events right. But these were the events of 1947-1950. They formed the right background for the Jammu and Kashmir state, which was formed in 1947. Those same events cannot be the background for the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) that is happening in 2019! For the background for the current topic, we need to look at what has been happening in the recent past. And that quite directly points to the Kashmir insurgency, which started in 1989 and is still ongoing. The insurgency, we might say has two parts to it: one is militancy, which had its ebb and flow on occasions and the second is a persistent demand for autonomy or independence (what Indians would call "separatism"). The Hindu nationalists claim that the separatism itself arises from the separation engendered by the special status granted to Kashmir. So that should end.

But the fact is also that there has never been any kind of consensus in India that Kashmir should be granted autonomy, not even within the Congress party. In 1950, the Congress leaders were able to arm-twist the rest of their countrymen citing the dispute with Pakistan as rationale. But that was just a made-up rationale. The Kashmiris were granted autonomy simply because they asked for it, and they were entitled to it. The Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja only ceded three subjects: defence, external affairs and communications, to the Union government. The rest of the powers were up for grabs. So, they got their autonomy, but the rest of the country never liked the idea that the Kashmiris got more privileges than they themselves have. That is why now the government was able to get two-thirds votes in both the Houses of the Parliament. Even within the Congress party there were serious dissent. So, India as a nation has spoken and said 'no' to Kashmiri autonomy. (The Supreme Court might put a block on it and say that is not how things are supposed to work, but that is going to take time.)

Finally, this page is about the Reorganisation Bill, which has done two things: reduced Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory, and cut off Ladakh from the state. Both of them smack of punitive treatments: "if you don't behave yourself this is what we will do to you" kind of thing. But the fact is also that J&K has three different ethnic divisions: the Jammu Division, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. They were stitched together by the British into a state, along with the Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which has two more divisions. It makes sense for the three parts to go three separate ways and, indeed, if Kashmir had been a normal state of India, this kind of division would have happened a long time ago. Separating the Jammu Division and the Kashmir Valley is harder, because there are some intricate issues there. But Ladakh is easier and the government went for it. The reduction to a union territory status has much less motivation as far as I can see. Perhaps it was just a way to keep control of policing, because the BJP was dissatisfied with the Kashmiri leaders in this area. The magnitude of its meaning seems to have escaped them.

So, this is the true background to the current events. You won't find it any of the international media, because they will only recycle the tired old Hindu-Muslim or India-Pakistan dichotomies and brandish the threat of nuclear war between them. But you will find some discussed in Indian media and some in scholarly sources in disparate places, but now that this has happened, we are likely to see some scholarly analyses come up and pull things together.

I don't think we are ready to cover any of this in a Background section yet, but maybe in a couple of months time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised by this statement because, just like the above, my edits added reference to: the 1989 insurgency, demands for autonomy, the role of the Maharaja in the accession, the British role in historic borders, the Indian government's desire to remove additional privileges from the region compared to other states, and the multi-ethnic composition of the the state. It appears we are in agreement, so I don't fully understand why there is conflict over those additions. I appreciate that I got the order wrong on one point (the Maharaja acceded to India because of instability in the region, rather than the other way around), but I'm generally confused by this interaction now... { SFB 19:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, those parts of your contribution that were factual and verifiable are retained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition of aftermath and effects of the bill of the bill.
I have added the Aftermath section which shows what happened after the enactment of tthe bill. This section is getting irresponsibly removed by some editors without proper reason. Addition of this section will provide a good incite to the bill, it's controversies and the increase in Human right violation due to lock down due to the bill. Edward Zigma (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion here. However, it needed to happen before reinstating your content, and you needed to reach a consensus before reinstating it.
 * If you read the various edit summaries that reverted your addition, you would note that it was pointed out to you that this was not an "aftermath", but was initiated before the Reorganisation Bill was introduced. It is covered in the preamble of the article and in much more detail in the Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. Since the revocation of special status and the reorganisation bill were carried out together, we can single out the lockdown as pertaining to the reorganisation only. It seems as if you don't really understand what is going on here. You need to read the full articles on these subjects before you attempt to make edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I reinstated the previous version of article. — Harshil want to talk? 01:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Amendment made by this act
This act amends no act of the Constitution of India and a different resolution was passed to amend article 370 and article 35a.So, whoever is editing this please don't edit this way.Again I want to make it clear This act amends no act of the Constitution of India Arjunuws (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Update required maybe
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020 has enough relevance I feel to find a place in this article. A recent addition in Article 35A gives a good idea of what can be added:

DTM (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Page move
, why did you move the page? DTM (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * because a bill/law is always dated in brackets. the page article seemed like: it was en event. Utkarsh555 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you have to say about Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829, Thuggee and Dacoity Suppression Acts, 1836–48, Indian Slavery Act, 1843, Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, Age of Consent Act, 1891, Special Marriage Act, 1954, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Enemy Property Act, 1968, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019? There is a longstanding convention both on WP and in Indian (and British Indian) jurisprudence.  The least you could have done was to first open a talk page thread.  I recommend that you self-revert your page move.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * i apologize. but reverting it back isn't possible, rather than by any admin. Utkarsh555 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Shifting content from article here
I have shifted this table from the article here as the references do not allow for the accurate referencing of the entire table. Once references are available it can be shifted back. DTM (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A flowchart for this article
This could be added to the article DTM (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * While this is an image, this could also be made through a Wikipedia template, making it easier for others to make changes and improvements. DTM (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)




 * I have removed this template for now. In my view, the linkages and overall tree structure imply causal relationships that might not exist or might not be accepted widely.  Kashmir, after all, is a disputed region.  Please post at WT:INDIA and ask for some feedback.  I'm thinking of people such as  who may have some advice.  In general, I think this article has become too long, its prose too complicated. Too much air time, as it were, is being given to the voting in the Indian parliament, too many bells and whistles accompany mere procedural things.  By contrast, I'm thinking of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Right to Information Act, 2005, and Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.  They all describe the acts themselves, not so much the legislative processes. In unknown ways, such emphasis can make the enacting government come out looking just, even considerate.  I've also made some changes both in the lead and in the main body, removing some things that appeared undue to me.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of this flowchart, but I do wonder if most of the information in it would be usefully presented as a collapsed timeline. The legislative milestones are relevant, even if the narrative itself should focus on the substance of the issue and not process details. I don't know how to construct such timelines though. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The flowchart looks way too complicated and doesn't really add value to the article. Also, isn't this sort of thing WP:OR? Any user constructed chart will include (exclude) material that the editor considers important (unimportant). Far better to stick with what secondary sources say. (Note that this is not a comment on the contents of the flowchart, of which I know rather little). --RegentsPark (comment) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert
, you reverted your own edit. Do you still think that paragraph should go or does it just need some improvement? DTM (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bigger problem with the article, and I probably need to think more about it. Kashmir is a disputed territory, and that does not mean that there is or has been a Kashmir conflict.  It means that the world's major powers do not accept it to undisputedly belong to the countries that control its different subdivisions, including India.  Its different major administrative divisions: Gilgit-Baltistan, Ladakh, J&K (union territory), Aksai Chin, and Azad Kashmir are all described as "regions administered by country X as an administrative unit Y," not just on Wikipedia but on Britannica as well.  Most Acts in India, however, are not specifically about disputed regions, though the Hindu Marriage Act, for example, ipso facto, also applies to Kashmir (as does the 26th Amendment of the Constitution of India which ended princely privileges and pensions). Still, this act is slightly different. We have to be very careful that the weight we employ in choosing and describing the different topics does not in the process imply that India has the undisputed right to legislate.  I think when you present this Act as any other, with pictures of the various Indian officials, you are implying that, giving them too much air time, as it were.  The pictures might need to go in their entirety in my view.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Pinging again.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I removed all the images of individuals and groups. I don't see this as a big issue so the removal made sense. DTM (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I added this line that sort of says the same thing as you are:
 * DTM (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Removing Vivekananda International Foundation sources/ other changes/suggestions

 * Don't think VIF sources deserves a place anywhere in wikipedia. I'd much rather have official government sources in those place.
 * Removed all Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies reference.
 * There's no mention of UAPA abuse. This needs an entire section.
 * Removed Pakistan has also raised the issue of human rights at various fora. right below Michelle Bachelet statements. Why exactly does this need a space right below UN HR chief's statements. Also, the scroll piece gives weight to UAPA abuse and arbitrary detention and intimidation of journalists too, while the para, actually the whole article is remiss of this. I wish I had time to go through the article in detail. What I've read in serious non-NPOV. - hako9 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hako9; Hello late-comer with no time. Please make whatever changes you need to. Not sure why you need to ping me here. Lol. If you are unable to make changes due to whatever reason then of course I can help by doing whatever you think is NPOV. Do you think anything else needs changing? DTM (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well, I've already made some changes and will continue to if I want. Didn't ping you for approval. Wanted to know what you think. No need for any antagonism. You don't want any criticism while the article you are working on is GA reviewed? Seriously, asking. - hako9 (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hako9 no criticism lol again... did you see the state of this article before the criticism started? DTM (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hako9; every single criticism has been addressed without any objections... if you hadn't noticed late comer with no time. DTM (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hako9; And you are the one calling it criticism. I have taken them as 'suggestions' or 'comments' DTM (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

More details needed to be added
Hi, I think some information is missing in this article. A source says:

Earlier, there was a lot of atrocities on women. If a woman from Kashmir got married to a man from Uttar Pradesh, her citizenship would be revoked. There was different citizenship for India and Kashmir,” Saini said addressing the crowd in Hindi. I think second paragraph in "Background" section needs to be updated. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * piffle WP:NOTNEWS - hako9 (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , we can make this encyclopaedic than adding information in news style.

Article 370 also restricted Kashmiri women from retaining their citizenship if they marry a non-native of Kashmir. With the revolution of special status, their citizenship remains unchanged. India and Kashmir had different citizenships. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That guy was trolling. I don't know if you are. - hako9 (talk)

Quality B
I have changed the quality to B. I hope someone has an issue with this. DTM (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies
— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)