Talk:Kashmir conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject China     (Rated B-Class) This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Pakistan     (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Article is property cited: criterion not met Article has one or more sections including LEAD: criterion not met Article is comprehensive: criterion not met Article includes some graphics (i.e., pictures or infoboxes): criterion not met Article is free of grammatical errors: criterion not met Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject India (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale by the India project. Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmir conflict article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

A lot of the discussion about disputes and problems with the article can be found at Talk:Kashmir

Contents 1 References Cited 2 Nonsensical passage 3 4000 or 3000 Pakistani soldiers killed 4 Pro-Indian POV 5 Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan 6 Kashmir not part of Pak - Pak Foreign Office 7 Lack of substance in the Pak POV 8 December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle” 9 Recent Developments section is biased 10 Pakistani View 11 Prime Minister during Accession 12 On the subject of pakistani and indian veiw points and also kashmiri pundits 13 Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem. 14 Nehru's Promise 15 Samjhauta Express bombings 16 "Terrorism", "terrorist" 17 Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg 18 Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg 19 Third Opinion 20 I added new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section

[edit] References Cited

It'd be good to have a refrence citing the obervation that King Hari Singh played india off against pakistan.

Ranjitointernational 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical passage

Does anyone care to clean up this passage? It makes no sense to me. Acsenray 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For India Kashmir has been more then a discomfiture then a feat. In 1947 30% of Kashmir was omitted to Pakistan and in 1962 30% of it was gone to China. On both those occasion’s Indian self-assurance was marred. India has not been able to convalesce those losses to date.

	This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.
Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge ==Kashmir Conflict== Kashmir Conflict - the articles dates don't line up. Also, it is not some of it is no longer relevent. It needs updating and more explaination in some points. It needs a longer intro. RJFJR 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC) Added to User:Alan Smithee 87/Desk RJFJR 22:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4000 or 3000 Pakistani soldiers killed

I don't think Nawaz Sharif or Pakistan People's Party are reliable sources because they belong to the opposition side who are willing to say anything to malign the current government in Parliment. We need solid neutral proof on the number of soldiers killed. Also, the Indian Army is always ready to name local insurgents as Pakistanis when it comes to counting the enemy dead in order to boost their own morale. Advil 01:38, 27 July 2006

Can you find any "independent observers" saying 4000 Pak soldiers have died, Idleguy? Advil 02:40, 27 July 2006

Please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources (found in the main article Kargil War). If you disagree with the stats provided then this isn't the place to vent your feelings since blanking in Wikipedia isn't welcome. Independent observers themselves tend to give high importance to the figures provided by people who were/are in power since a person somewhere in the west would have no clue compared to the one who was closer to the conflict. If anything Pakistan hasn't officially conducted a commission nor has it spelt out the casualties in Kargil; the only mention seems to be a boast by Musharaf that the Pakistan Army casualties were lower, however he doesn't give the exact numbers. Infact one of the "mujahideen" groups themselves had claimed on their website (during the conflict) that thousands had "martyred" in the icy peaks. That's only the jihadis mind you, not the NLI, SSG or Pak Army. I think it's time to accept history for what it was, instead of being in denial of the facts in this day and age. --Idleguy 07:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop disguising assumptions as facts by showing unreliable sources such as statements from Mr. Sharif or the PPP. Mr. Sharif now states that he was not given any briefing about the Kargil war on July 14, 2006 which is hard to believe. Lt-Gen Khawaja Ziauddin was the head of the ISI who reported directly to the prime minister. If Sharif was not briefed, as he so claims, it is strange that the ISI gave no information about the skirmish to him. If the claim of Mr Sharif is true, then the question arises why instead of sacking Lt-Gen Ziauddin for this intelligence failure, Mr Sharif proceeded to appoint him as army chief when he decided to replace Gen Musharraf. It’s about time you people accept the fact that Sharif is an unreliable source when it comes to the 1999 skirmish. Advil 03:28, 27 July 2006

Just because Mr Sharif gives a figure that seems to bother a few Pakistanis, he is termed as unreliable. Even when the PPP attests to that and quotes a lower figure, they too are branded as unacceptable. How convenient! Elected representatives' statements are rubbished, yet, a dictator's words are taken at face value - not that Gen Musharaf has even given a casualty figure - thus making a mockery of sources.

You must remember one thing, Wikipedia is about verifiability, see Wikipedia:Verifiability which states boldly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you feel that Sharif is lying, that is different but his statement is a verifiable one and that's all that matters. Also I'm making the last revert and any more reverts by you will come under WP:3RR given that your edits of blanking selective sections seem to constitute a type of vandalism --Idleguy 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how Indians are willing to accept these numbers as concrete facts to boost their low morale. Mr. Sharif's political career depends on defying and creating animosity against the current government. Advil 11:00, 27 July 2006

Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:42, 27 July 2006

OK. I have removed the whole casualty thing since it now requires a full paragraph. Instead the main article on the war has the casualty figures explained in detail. The focus of this article is the history and since none of the other wars discuss the casualty figures anyway I've removed this one too since it is needlessly getting larger just for one aspect. Hope you will understand. Tx Idleguy 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:52, 27 July 2006

These sources are already there with the casualty figures in the Kargil War article. No one is deleting that, infact I was the one who put it there in the first place. I'm saying it'll keep on getting longer and longer just to have a redundant casualty section in an article about the history of the Kashmir conflict. Take a look at the other wars covered here and you'll find they don't talk about the casualties. Including casualties involves a controversy - and we have enough of that here already in this article, so please try to understand and don't lose the focus of the article. Infact the link you provided here will be useful in the Kargil War about the equipment used by Pakistan. --Idleguy 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Indian POV

The "Indian view" and "Pakistani view" sections are horribly pov in favor of india. All the Indian points are given with no counter arguments, while the Pakistani points all have Indian counter arguments in them. It not fair.

I would change it myself, but I don't want to mess up the citations. 68.111.239.16 20:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone with no vested interests here (I just came here to learn more about the dispute), I agree completely. There is a definite non-neutral pov problem that pervades this entire article. (Furthermore, the "Indian view" is so poorly written as to actually hurt the case it is trying to make!) But I'm not going to change this either, because, as I said, I really don't know enough. 69.195.27.62 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The following passage appears in the Kashmir article. These important issues, if they are true, or even if they are asserted but disputed, should be mentioned in the present article:

In 1948, the Maharaja reportedly signed accesion to India, much to the dismay of Pakistan. Historians have disputed whether the Maharaja actually signed the accession treaty before Indian troops entered Kashmir. Furthermore, the Indian government has never produced an original copy of this accession treaty and thus its validity and legality is disputed.--StN 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should be reworded to "Pakistan has disputed whether the Maharaja actually signed the accession treaty", not "historians" which is misleading. It's not an easy thing to forge the signature of a governor general of Britain's largest colony, and get away with such a high profile fake instrument done on behalf of the Queen's powers. I'm reproducing a copy of the treaty here and elsewhere to settle this claim by "historians" and an article titled Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) already exists where external links show the original document hosted on a Govt. of India website. --Idleguy 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon. vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmir not part of Pak - Pak Foreign Office

1. “For the past 60 years, we have never claimed Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan. What we have said is that Kashmiris should be able to decide their future and we hope that they would opt for Pakistan,” Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam told a weekly news briefing here.

2. When Ms Aslam was reminded that the slogan of the Pakistani nation for past 60 years had been: ‘Kashmir banay ga Pakistan’ her response was: “That is a slogan of Kashmiris not Pakistan.”

3. Asserting that Pakistan had never claimed that Azad Kashmir was part of Pakistan, the Spokesperson said: “Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. If we were claiming it as integral part of Pakistan then we would have had a governor and a chief minister there.” The spokesperson urged the reporters to study Pakistan’s historical position on Kashmir.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top3.htm

It's time to clean up all articles with the assertion that Pak claims Kashmir. Evidently it does not and never has all these decades. So much for every expert's well-researched understanding on matters Kashmir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/6.htm and http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/4.htm before claiming Pakistan does not control AK - obviously it cannot openly claim a disputed territory like Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan, then it would not be able to point fingers at India for doing so - but it treats it as such. --- Zebee 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of substance in the Pak POV

1. Kindly put up references and citations about Pak's official viewpoint on Kashmir.

2. Pak Forein Office has officially claimed that it has never said that Kashmir belongs to Pak.

3. References in books and newsreports about the happenings in Sep-mid Oct 1947 clearly suggest that Pak tribals were encouraged to attack Kashmir and that arms were distributed for the expedition in the Pathan tribal areas.. The Pathan tribals used as a proxy by the Pak plitical establishment, attacking and invading Kashmir is a fact. The Indian troops landing in choppers into Srinagar only on Oct 27,1947 is also a fact. Just because the Pak troops themselves were involved late by Pak, doesn't mean that Pak didn't officially invade.This is the pivot of the Pak POV.

4. There's no place for rumors to be put up as fact or even a POV when it is not adequately backed up. Anybody can spin a yarn with the 1947 setting and claim it to be a theory. That's exactly what the Pak POV suggests.

5. Pak incidentally has never disputed the Accession Document for Kashmir in the UN. I would ask for the Pak official position on Kashmir at the UN to be made available here as citation and reference. Incidentally the Indian official position at the UN vide Krishna Menon's marathon speech is available.

6. If references/citations are not availabe, just delete the trash and stick to proven facts.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Two points:

• Wikipedia is not a collection of viewpoints but a NPOV collection of facts from reliable sources.
• I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

7. I am not sure that the Pakistani viewpoint consists of the statement, "India's pretence to be a secular state is a deceit. In India, everything is dominated by the Hindus and the Muslims suffer persecution and repression." This seems like an unverifiable opinion and is probably vandalism. It should be deleted. --71.103.179.28 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”

"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan

Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai

By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi

A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore

Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa

Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Developments section is biased

. == This section is incredibly biased towards Indian POV ==

1. First of all, I havent been able to find Kofi Anan saying that the UN resolution is irrelevant. He only said it can not be enforced in the current situation. And suggested that Lahore Declaration had a better chance of solving the problem. Not to mention that the reference for that "quote" is an article from an indian newspaper! which in itself doesnt literally quote the UNGS!!

2. Secondly, the statement "Also contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. This was confirmed in a 2002 survey by MORI where around 61% of the respondents said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen, with only 6% preferring Pakistan instead. The rest were undecided or wished to become independent. [18]" is also completely wrong. The referenced survey asked Kashimiris many different questions and one of them asked which one of Pakistan or India will evenutally leave them better of politically and economically. This in no way suggests that they support joining India. e.g. the same survey also says

"Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy."

and

"An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support - 91% - for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests."

which clearly suggests they lean towards an undivided independent Kashmir.

3. Continuing with the point above, its never quoted anywhere that there is a big distinction between jammu, laddakh and rest of the kashmir. Jammu is an hindu majority region, laddakh is 50% and 49% buddhist and muslim respectively, and the rest of the kashmir is overwhelmingly muslim. So there is bound to be a significant difference in opinion between the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.3.36 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

== Bias == Intentional Bent reasoning towards Indian POV

This articles Reasons behind the dispute section is extremely biased. For every Pakistani view their is a counter argument, but this is not done on the Indian view. IP198 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani View

On the pakistani view their is an Indian counter argument for every position. This is not done on the Indian view. The Pakistani view, is supposed to be the one section of the article that is completly in Pakistans pov. Please put counter arguments in the Indian view, or create a new section called Indian counter arguments to Pakistan view. Also instead of reverting, lets discuss any problems on the talk page. IP198 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets start from scratch on the Pakistani view, this way we can have references as well. It does not make any sense to have counter arguments on the Pakistani View. IP198 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan's View is misleading and twisted

It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.

I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.

So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.

Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.

Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.

So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.

Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani View has been replaced with official Pakistani stand on Kashmir Conflict- Please do not alter or delete the material edited in Pakistani View section as it has been sourced directly from Ministry of Foreign Affairs- Government of Pakistan, with formal permission. Permission has been granted for reference purposes only and cannot be re-produced without formal permission from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan. Therefore I will appreciate if somebody can fix its references and links to official Pakistani government web-site in order to understand Pakistan's official stand on Kashmir Conflict. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Minister during Accession

There are some strange inconsistencies under the "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947" heading. There was use of "Islamabad" (as a way of saying "Government of Pakistan"), when Islamabad didn't even exist in 1947. I fixed that up easily enough, but it got me suspicious. Then I noticed that it mentioned "Maharaja Hari Singh and Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir", first in reference to asking the Government of India for help, then in reference to "completing negotiations for accession". Now I only have one or two sources of info about this, and it's possible that they are biased against India, but they both agree that Sheikh Abdullah didn't become Prime Minister until after accession (in fact, him becoming Prime Minister was one of the conditions of accession). I could swear I editted to fix this, but I have a horrible memory, so I can't be sure. If someone has good knowledge about this, I'd appreciate a clarification. I could help fill in a bit of the messiness in the article, but as I said, I only have one or 2 sources, and it could be construed that they are biased towards India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babloyi (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I reverted the removal of Sheikh Abdullah because there was no explanation for it, which made me suspicious. But since you have pointed out the reason he was removed, I looked into it and you appear to be correct. Thank you for explaining this point. I took Sheikh Abdullah out of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 section, until someone comes up with better sources. PubliusFL 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the subject of pakistani and indian veiw points and also kashmiri pundits

Well to put this as clear as possible there are far too many indians editing pakistani topics and manipulating data heavily the pakistani view point doesnt even have a single counter while indian veiws are posted in a very biased and propgandanist way.

I also think more attention should be payed on fake encounters carried out by indian troops whenever i edit it it is always deleted by some pro indian these pages needs a seriously needed bias check and updating ure ignoring muslims in kashmir and posting baseless pandit claims.

Wikipedia seriously needs to monitor indian propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BILLYBOY09 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 August 2007.

[edit] Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem.

Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem.

Kashmir conflict is often considered to be the basic reason for rivalry between India and Pakistan, it is however to be noted that the Two nation theory which principally denies that hindus and muslim can co-exist is the root cause of the conflict. the trustees of this theory went on to become the founders of pakistan. thus as far as the logic of pakistan goes kashmir must be ceeded as a muslim majority state to pakistan ( as per indian independence act 1946 )

However india which takes pride in it's religious and social diversity. can not, In any case accept The Two Nation Theory. Thus acceptance of kashmir as part of pakistan, is against the secular tradition of democratic india, and at the same time denial of claims on kashmir, will falter the foundation of Islamic republic of Pakistan. thus we cannot expect a solution to this problem in near future.

As long as the people of pakistan cherrish the Two nation theory. which advocates intolerence and hatred, peacefull co-existence of these mighty South Asian neighbours is not possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashutosh2405 (talk • contribs) 09:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Nehru's Promise

It is very significant fact that Nehru, then Prime Minster of India when the issue has raised,has promised the Kashmari peoples to decide their fortune according to their wishes,as history mentions in various occasions.If Maharaja Hari Singh can sold Kashmir to India it mean the Kashmir is property of India, and then what about the millions of peoples whom wishes are not accomplished to be independent.And Its too look like a kind of Martial Law which is compressing Kashmari people as over 0.8 million Indian Forces in the Indian Kashmir Zone.

My question is "When the Indian Leaders will obey the promise of their superior?" If they are not then why Nehru make promise just to misguide the world. and, Nehru do know that I have committed a false move about Kashmir and a Hindu Raja over 90% muslims also did not care.

And in the Pak-India disputes Wikipedia is not caring to be these articles neutral. Wikipedia official should care about the neutrality and should rely on sources that are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif Arshad Khan (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samjhauta Express bombings

If the 2007 train fire bombings are not related to Kashmir then why is the event even listed on the time line? I don't know if that sentence needs to be removed or the event needs to be removed but someone in the know should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.228.44 (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Terrorism", "terrorist"

All the words "terrorism", "terrorist" in this article need to be either closed in brackets or replaced with their neutral equivalents (insurgents, rebels, armed groups, etc.) as their usage violates Wikipedia NPOV policy.

This pertains to descriptions of all armed conflicts in the world.

Kacper (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested regarding an edit disagreement on the article Kashmir conflict. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute. Its major benefit is that the process provides an informal method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, a third opinion cannot be given without some discussion of the dispute. The first step in the third opinion request process is therefore to discuss the dispute on the article talk pages.

Discussion often leads to a resolution without third party involvement. I recommend beginning one here. If discussion does not lead to a resolution of the dispute, you are welcome to submit another third opinion request. Mmyotis ^{^^o^^} 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I added new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section

I gave in some new arguments for the "Indian view" section but I did not source them. But these are valid arguments and i hope there allowed to stay in the article here. I spent the time and gave new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section, and i did not erase much. I mostly added, and erased very little. Please let these arguments stay, because they are good arguments from India's side. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, most of your information is highly contradictory and since this is a also a controversial topic, it really requires sources to most of the information already in the article. You can add the information again if you have proper sources. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)