Talk:Mirza Hassan Khan

UNDUE material reverted
I have reverted your very large expansion of the article today. As mentioned in the edit summary: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. An autobiography is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used directly. Any historical information has to be sourced to WP:HISTRS. The sources should at least be scholarly sources published in peer-reviewed articles/books.
 * A biography article should be firmly focused on the person. Political background can only be described very briefly. It should again sourced to WP:HISTRS.

Queries from Shahrukh020806
[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

The question here is, if only Gilgit wazarat was part of state of J & K and not the Gilgit Agency i.e. tribal areas and the state of Hunza and Nagar then:

1. Why did colonial britishers took admistrative control of Gilgit agency ( includes Hunza and Nagar) from Maharaja Kashmir in 1935 on 60 years lease? https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/104848-Colonial-transactions-in-Gilgit-Baltistan. This lease agreement is an official documented, and can be found in any book or publication on Jammu & Kashmir.The lease agreement terminated prematurely on 1st August 1947, due to Indian Independence act of July 1947 and the Gilgit agency was given back to Maharaja Kashmir. These areas were then made Northern Area Province( includes Gilgit Baltistan- Ladakh) of the state of J & K and Maharaja hari Singhs cousin, Brig Ghansar Singh jamwal was made its military governor, based at Gilgit.

2. And most importantly, when India finally took the matter/dispute of state of Jammu & Kashmir to the UN, why did the UNCIP( UN commission) included all these areas( including state of Hunza and Nagar) in the plebicite area, if they were not under the suzeranity or part of disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir? Please consult UNMOGIP map of disputed areas published on their website and regularly updated. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unmogip/background.shtml

Above is only one example of Mr. Bangash's shallow approach towards historical facts on GB and Kashmir. Secondly, he writes in his publication about accession letters from Mirs of state of Hunza and Nagar to Pakistan http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03086530903538269scroll=top&needAccess=true

Indeed, accession letters from the rulers of these two states were written in favour of Pakistan but they were simply disregarded on 5th March 1949( well after the 1st August 1948 and 2nd Jan 1949 UNCIP resolutions on J & K were already adopted by the UNSC and signed by both India and Pakistan) and states of hunza and nagar made part of plebicite area( seeUNMOGIP map of disputed area), hence 'disputed' along with rest of Gilgit and Baltistan. Please refer to UNCIP resolutions on J & K for details.

After these two major errors in his writings, i am not sure he is worthy enough to be qouted anywhere on the historical matters of Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahrukh220806 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that, as per the UNCIP resolutions, the entire area of Gilgit-Baltistan is regarded as part of the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir.
 * As far as I have been able to determine, the Gilgit leased area was officially just the area shown as Gilgit tehsil on the map on this page. However, in practice, it also included the Gilgit wazarat (Astore district and possibly Chilas district)
 * The remaining areas were subdued by the Brisith Gilgit Agency without the direct involvement of the Maharaja, but placed under the nominal suzerainty of the Maharaja. All these areas were handed over to the Maharaja before August 1947, and thus became part of Jammu and Kashmir.
 * Baltistan was part of the Ladakh wazarat, and was directly administered by Jammu and Kashmir. It was never a part of the Gilgit Agency. It was conquered by the Gilgit Scouts and the rebel forces of 6 JKI, after the Gilgit coup.
 * It seems to be the case that Hunza and Nagar wrote Instruments of Accession in favour of Pakistan, but the legality of these accessions has never been determined. As far as I know, Pakistan has never accepted these accessions.
 * In my personal opinion, the legal status of Gilgit-Baltistan is the same as that of Azad Kashmir. I think Pakistan is wrong to treat it differently. I hope this addresses all the issues raised above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)