Talk:Kashmir conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pathankot tehsil[edit]

Coming back to this issue after a long break, it came as surprise to me to find that the Pakistani delegation never laid claim to the Pathankot tehsil. V. N. Datta says:

Besides 17 districts listed in the notional divisions in the Appendix to the 3rd June statement (minus a non-Muslim majority area of Pathankot tehsil) the Muslim League claimed the following areas:...The Muslim League claimed 19 1/2 districts of Punjab for the new West Punjab leaving 9 1/2 districts for East Punjab in India.[1]:853-854

Sir Zafrullah Khan does not mention Pathankot tehsil by name, by he does concede:

We rested our case on the tehsil, or sub-district being adopted as the unit for the purpose of determining contiguous majority areas.[2]

So, it appears that the Pakistani delegation had always conceded the Pathankot tehsil to India, ergo they conceded India's land route into Kashmir. I don't really know what the controversy is about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Datta, V. N. (1998), "The Punjab Boundary Commission Award (12 August, 1947)", Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 59: 850–862, JSTOR 44147058
  2. ^ * Wilcox, Wayne; Embree, Aislie T., eds. (2004), Reminiscences of Sir Muhammad Zufrulla Khan, Oriental Publishers, p. 154

Article 370[edit]

Article 370 of the Constitution of India is made ineffective. There is a section on it in the article. The article needs to be updated regarding it. @Kautilya3:. -Nizil (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019[edit]

change "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947 as a dispute over the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir" to "The dispute began in 1947 with the Pakistani tribal invasion of Kashmir"

The current text suggests that the conflict originated as part of the partition, however it was not the case. Kashmir had decided to exercise its right to remain independent post partition, but Pakistan tried to convince the then ruler to join Pakistan. When he did not agree, Pakistan decided to forcefully take control of independent state of Kashmir. It resulted into conflict when the king Hari Singh signed a treaty with India Suryap2011 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. "after the partition" does not mean originated from partition. But there was no mention of the tribal invasion, which I have now added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s not clear that this is a better introduction. Invasion by Pakistani militias sure, but “tribal invasion” is hardly an impartial term. Plus, it is not referenced that this invasion was really the impetus for the allegiance of the local ruler to India. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── MarkH, can you explain this revert? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s in the comment directly above yours here, in the previous section. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the article body? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I don’t see why you would assume I haven’t. The conflict arises from a much more complex issue than just a “Pakistani tribal invasion.” To say so is disingenuous and disregards the rebellions, ethnic tensions, and massacres from both sides. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it wasn't idyllic peace earlier. But the ruler had to accede to India because of the tribal invasion, which was about to overrun Srinagar. The term "tribal invasion" is used in numerous scholarly sources [1], and is not "contentious" as per Ian Copland:

As is well known, this Hindu-ruled Muslim majority state could conceivably have joined either India or Pakistan, but procrastinated about making a choice until a tribal invasion - the term is not contentious - forced the ruler's hand.[1]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Copland, Ian (Spring 2003), "War and Diplomacy in Kashmir: 1947-48 by C. Dasgupta (review)", Pacific Affairs, 76 (1): 144–145, JSTOR 40024025
Okay sure, after the Poonch rebellion and bloody conflict resulting directly from the Partition, as implied by this source. I’ll revise your change to reflect this background while keeping the reference to the invasion. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Gilgit-Baltistan is not part of kashmir[edit]

Before 1936 Gilgit-Baltistan was consist of several independent states. During soviet expansion in 1936 British government in subcontinent planned to merge all the states of Gilgit-Baltistan and name it as Gilgit agency then it was given on the lease for 60 years to Maharaja Hari Singh who was the ruler of kashmir at that time. But later on during partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Maharaja Hari Singh was paid by Indian counterpart to expand there borders till Gilgit-Baltistan region. At that time Major Brown was assigned as political agent for Gilgit-Baltistan by British govt and he come to know about the fake contact, which was not accepted by British govt as Maharaja Harisingh was not authorized to do any contract with any state. Then group of rebellions and with the help of british forces invade dogra raj. Then later on people of Gilgit-Baltistan merge with the Pakistan on bases of 2 nations theory. Ismailmughal89 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Neither is Ladakh a part of Kashmir, nor Jammu, nor Mirpur nor Poonch. But the British terminology is that 'Kashmir' (see that page please) covers all of them.
Also your history is quite broken. Baltistan was never a part of any 'agency'. And, the Gilgit Agency (which controlled Chilas, Ishkoman and other principalities) and the Gilgit Wazarat (the leased area) were different. Half the bill for the Gilgit Scouts was paid for by the Maharaja throughout its lifetime, and it was fully paid by him after its return in June 1947. Major William Brown, who was the commander of Gilgit Scouts (not the Political Agent of Gilgit Agency), was Maharaja's employee when he mutinied. So were Mirza Hassan Khan and the rest of the 6th Kashmir Infantry stationed at Bunji. And Colonel Aslam Khan, who took over the command from William Brown, was an employee of the Azad Kashmir provisional government.
Gilgit-Baltistan (then called 'Northern Areas') was signed over to Pakistan by the Azad Kashmir government in the so-called Karachi Agreement. Since Pakistan never wanted to make this agreement public, it generated the propaganda that Gilgit wasn't part of Kashmir. It is quite nonsense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019[edit]

I wish to add a citation for (585): Hingorani, Aman M. (2016)Unravelling the Kashmir Knot(, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-93-5150-972-1 Armaananand26 (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 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. Philroc (c) 01:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Armaananand26, the article is semi-protected and you will not be able to edit it until you are auto-confirmed. Until then, you need to indicate here as clearly as possible what edit you want made.
Alternatively, you can copy the content of this page to your sandbox, and make the edits there. Then we can see what you are trying to do.
Your request above is not clear to me. Where do you want to the citation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi! It looks like he wanted to replace the citation needed note at reference 584 with the above book source. I'm posting on his talk page to see what page in specific should be cited, however. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019[edit]

please change "Constitution of India doesn't have any provision for a plebiscite and 1948 white paper was against Constitution of India so it automatically got abolished" to "The constitution of India doesn't have any provision for a plebiscite and 1948 white paper was against Constitution of India so it automatically got abolished."

This is under Article 370 Armaananand26 (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for raising this. The whole paragraph was apparently unsourced. I have now removed it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)