Jump to content

Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bibliography

[edit]

High-level (see WP:TERTIARY) sources on the Kashmir disputes:

  • Bose, Sumantra (2003), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01173-2
  • Hussain, Shahla (2021), Kashmir in the Aftermath of the Partition, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781108901130
  • Schofield, Victoria (2021) [first published in 2000], Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending War (Updated ed.), I.B.Tauris, ISBN 978-0-7556-0718-1

(Please feel free to add more). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE expansion

[edit]

Link to the version under debate

Roman Reigns Fanboy, I admire your enthusiasm for this topic, but adding this much content at one go, using narrowly focused sources without adequate WP:BALANCE, can't be done in a contentious topic like this one. This is meant to be an article about the state and such articles tend to be drab ones that talk about the geography, economy, demographics etc. Certain amount of history can also be included, but only the most high-level coverage can go here. Details like when the Comptroller and Auditor General's jurisdiction was extended to the state are too mundane to be in any encyclopedic article.

Even the little bits you added back in September 2022 are problematic. For instance, you write that the Constitution of India "integrated the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir through Article 370", citing a PhD student's research contribution. That is quite insane. As stated in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, the article merely documented the provisions of the Instrument of Accession. The Kashmir dispute was still active in the UN, and the UN mediator was yet to arrive in India. It was not the time to make any grandiose decisions.

Consider adding your contributions to the Kashmir Conflict and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and make sure that they represent scholarly consensus as far as possible, not narrow points of view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kautilya3 you should never revert edits that are like to cause controversy without a proper explanation first. Just saying that you reverted and telling others to discuss first does not fulfill that. See WP:UNRESPONSIVE, WP:EDITSUMMARY and WP:DISPUTE.

The erosion of autonomy of the state was a significant and notable development. You've also removed everything about the effects of 1965 war and 1971 war on J&K I added. As well as the plebisicite demand. Not just that you've also removed my corrections like adding the year in which the Constituent Assembly was created.

If you feel some content is not worth including then exclude that instead of blanking the entire content. Wikipedia policy is to improve when you can, and in this case I doubt you couldn't. Please restore at least some of my edits and provide proper explanation for your removal. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the post above. And see WP:BRD for guidance on how to deal with content disputes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, if you feel it is unbalanced then you should remove what you feel is unbalanced rather than everything. Secondly, the sources focus on conflict and Kashmir. And all of them are reliable, so there's nothing wrong in using them. I didn't add them in one go, it took me two days to properly resarch.
You also removed my basic corrections like adding the year 1951 to when the Constituent Assembly of J&K was established and delinking the 1957 Constitution from a part that was about 1952.
WP:BRD does not exclude you from providing proper edit summaries for your reverts and you can be reverted or complained for overstepping Wikipedia rules. You must provide proper explanation for your reverts, I will complain you if you don't.
As for the PhD student, I didn't check it at that time but you could have simply informed me first.
I am not going to add the content anywhere else just because you don't like it. Please restore my edits. The erosion of autonomy and plebiscite demands were a significant development.
Also please be careful to not modify comments made by others and change titles added by them like you did with mine here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS, and you do not have an inherent privilege to write whatever you think is appropriate. The WP:ONUS to convince the other editors about the appropriateness of your contribtions lies with you as well. Your claim that one should "never revert edits" is quite ridiculous, to tell you the truth.
It does not look like you have looked at WP:UNDUE, which was cited in my edit summary. This is an article about the state, not about the autonomy of the state.
More generally, your sources are not of required quality for an encyclopedia. There are zillions of written works about Kashmir. Have you consulted WP:TERTIARY sources to determine DUE weight? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the minor corrections that might have gotten lost in the big revert, you can look through the edit history to tell me which revision has them without suffering from the WP:UNDUE expansion problem, and I can reinstate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know how consensus works, I've read some of the policies. I have already explained how the plebiscite demand and erosion of autonomy affected the state. There was a whole paragraph about how J&K was troubled due to this which you removed. If you are not convinced that is not my fault. ONUS doesn't justify stubbornness. What you seem to be doing is WP:STONEWALL.
And I also know what you've done is against policies by providing no explanation when removing my edits. You are not explaining why you failed to do that. I ask you to acknowledge your mistake and not repeat that in future, aaking for consensus doesn't allow you to violate other policies.
You talk of consensus, but you do know there's also the option of informing a person beforehand you have an issue about their edits rather than removing outright? You could have come to me, talked to me what you didn't like and I likely would have agreed. I already do agree on some of the points you made here.
WP:RCD explicitly advises to approach the editors first and improve rather than delete salvageable content. And I'm sure you knew not everything there was worth deleting. You didn't care and proceeded to blank. Which shows you prefer starting disputes rather than resolving them.
Why should I take the pain to tell you your mistakes when you are clearly uncooperative and didn't bother even once with trying to preserve what you were removing? When my edits and reverts end up removing non-disruptive edits of others, I make sure to include them back no matter how painstaking it is. I'm not going to help you fix your behaviour and problems. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: In order to resolve the issue here's my compromise. A rewritten section.

The successive state governments headed by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Khwaja Shams-ud-Din, Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq and Syed Mir Qasim ensured that the control of the union government over Jammu and Kashmir was further extended. The All Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front was formed with the patromage of the imprisoned Abdullah in 1955 by expelled National Conference members to demand the holding of a referendum regarding the status of the state. It succeeded in mobilising Kashmiri Muslims en masse and gaining their support over the National Conference, although it lacked support of non-Muslims and the Jammu regiom. The government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad however acted preemptively to suppress the organisation.
Nehru in March 1956 withdrew the offer of a plebiscite for Jammu and Kashmir, citing the approval of its accession by the state constituent assembly and alleging aggressive intentions on part of Pakistan. The Plebiscite Front meanwhile continued its activities underground and Abdullah remained massively popular. Nehru had him released in January 1958, believing that the Kashmir dispute could not be resolved without him. Abdullah however launched a campaign over the erosion of the autonomy of the state soon after his release. He was arrested again in April 1958 and charged with inciting a rebellion through support from Pakistan in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case.
Nehru had Abdullah released again in April 1964 and sent him to Pakistan to initiate dialogue with President Ayub Khan, suggesting a condominium over Jammu and Kashmir and a Indo-Pakistani Confederation. Nehru however died before Khan could personally meet him. In December 1964, the Indian government extended provisions of Articles 356 and 357, which allowed for President's rule in the state.
In April 1965, the legislative assembly approved renaming the positions of Sadr-i-Riyasat to Governor and Wazir-i-Azam (Prime Minister) to Chief Minister. Though the change had no actual effect on the legal structure of the state, it conveyed that the government of Jammu and Kashmir was equal to that of any other Indian state.
Pakistan viewed the erosion of autonomy of the state as leading to its inseparablity from India and launched an armed conflict, infiltrating Kashmir during Operation Gibraltar in August 1965. However it ultimately failed in its objective and both countries returned to the status quo after the Tashkent Declaration of 1966. The government of G.M. Sadiq meanwhile rapidly extended many provisions of the Indian Constitution to further integrate Jammu and Kashmir into India.
Following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, India and Pakistan signed the Simla Agreement, recognising a Line of Control in Kashmir, and committing to a peaceful resolution of the dispute through bilateral negotiations.
The 1971 war also weakened the Kashmiri nationalist movement and Abdullah dropped demands of secession. Under the Indira–Sheikh Accord of 1975, he recognised the region as a part of India, the state legislature requiring the approval of the President to make laws, and the Parliament of India being able to promulgate laws against secessionism. In return, Article 370 was left untouched and Mir Qasim was asked to resign to allow Abdullah to become the Chief Minister. The region remained mostly peaceful until his death in 1982.
By 1999, 94 out of the 97 subjects in the Union List and 260 out of 395 articles of the Constitution of India had become applicable in the state, though it retained some of its autonomy. Article 370 had thus become mostly symbolic. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy

[edit]

I think we need to first come to a consensus on how the autonomy issues should be treated at all. You made comments like

  • The erosion of autonomy of the state was a significant and notable development
  • I have already explained how the plebiscite demand and erosion of autonomy affected the state.

These sound like your own opinions. I have referred you to two WP:TERTIARY sources on my User talk:

which don't have terms like "Erosion of Autonomy". I admit that some scholars believe that autonomy for Kashmir was desirable, some might even think that the Kashmiris were entitled to it, but that is not a position that an encyclopedia can take. As far as we are concerned, Kashmiri leaders demanded autonomy, the Indian leaders acquiesced to a certain extent, and gradually diluted it. From the Indian point of view, India has a Federal Constitution, with an established division of Central-State division of powers, and anything that deviates from that would be an abnormality that requires justification. Your write-up is completely oblivious of the Indian views.

You are welcome to create a page on Autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir where such issues can be addressed. As far as this page is concerned, a small section on Autonomy, roughly of the same size as #Kashmir insurgency is all that can be included. And that section would need to summarise, at a high-level, the issues of autonomy from WP:NPOV standpoint without taking sides. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my opinion, had you bothered to read the paragraphs you'd notice it led to prolonged trouble in the state. Some sources not saying there was erosion of autonomy doesn't mean it didn't happen. The union government did exceed the measures of the Instrument of Accession.
Since you won't stop stonewalling and displaying WP:OWNERSHIP, I'm breaking off communication and complaining you to the admins. Enough is enough. You had many chances to come to an agreement but decided to impose your own POV after violating policies, under which I can revert you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems mostly to be quite high level, and lacks specific textual proposals backed by sources. A few interesting topics of discussion were raised (I am oddly intrigued by mention of limits to the Comptroller and Auditor General's jurisdiction), it would be good to see them explained. CMD (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: The sources are in the edits User:Kautilya3 removed [1] and he knows about them since the whole para mentions how the central government trying to diminish the state autonomy. The point with additions like limits to CAG (which I agreed to remove) was to show how the Indian government was limited in exercising powers over the state.
With that said, [2] (page 113-160), [3] and [4] are good places to start about erosion of autonomy and its effects.
Most of the articles of the Indian Constitution and subjects of Union List were belatedly applied to J&K by 1999 [5]. Denial that there was no erosion of autonomy is contrary to facts, it was virtually made equal to other Indian states.
Unfortunately, the admins shut down my complaint simply considering it content dispute. When it's obvious Kautilya3 does not want to cooperate at all and is imposing his own will by gaming the system. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to discuss the denial of the erosion of autonomy at an abstract level. Could you note specific text you'd like to add/change/remove, and the source(s) for that specific bit of text? CMD (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned my amended and trimmed section before this autonomy sub-section User:Chipmunkdavis. I'll re-mention it with sources this time, I've modified it a bit more.:

The successive state governments headed by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Khwaja Shams-ud-Din, Ghulam Mohammed Sadiq and Syed Mir Qasim ensured that the control of the union government over Jammu and Kashmir was further extended.[6] The All Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front was formed with the patronage of the imprisoned Abdullah in 1955 by expelled National Conference members to demand the holding of a referendum regarding the status of the state.[7][8] It succeeded in mobilising Kashmiri Muslims en masse and gaining their support over the National Conference,[9] although it lacked support of non-Muslims[10] and the Jammu region.[11] The government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad however acted preemptively to suppress the organisation.[12]
Nehru in March 1956 withdrew the offer of a plebiscite for Jammu and Kashmir, citing the approval of its accession by the state constituent assembly and alleging aggressive intentions on part of Pakistan.[13][14] The Plebiscite Front meanwhile continued its activities underground[15] and Abdullah remained massively popular. Nehru had him released in January 1958, believing that the Kashmir dispute could not be resolved without him. Abdullah however launched a campaign over the erosion of the autonomy of the state soon after his release.[16] He was arrested again in April 1958, being charged with sedition and promoting secession in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case.[17] (page 131) Despite attempts at portrayal of political normalcy there was growing unrest in the state, signified by the theft of the relic of Islamic prophet Muhammad in 1963.[18]
Nehru had Abdullah released again in April 1964 and sent him to Pakistan to initiate dialogue with President Ayub Khan, suggesting a condominium over Jammu and Kashmir and a Indo-Pakistani Confederation. Nehru however died before Khan could personally meet him. In December 1964, the Indian government extended provisions of Articles 356 and 357, which allowed for President's rule in the state.[19]
In April 1965, the legislative assembly approved renaming the positions of Sadr-i-Riyasat to Governor and Wazir-i-Azam (Prime Minister) to Chief Minister. Though the change had no actual effect on the legal structure of the state, it conveyed that the government of Jammu and Kashmir was equal to that of any other Indian state.[20]
Pakistan viewed these developments as leading to its inseparablity from India and launched an armed conflict,[21] infiltrating Kashmir during Operation Gibraltar in August 1965. However it ultimately failed in its objective and both countries returned to the status quo after the Tashkent Declaration of 1966.[22] The government of G.M. Sadiq meanwhile rapidly extended many provisions of the Indian Constitution to further integrate Jammu and Kashmir into India.[23]
The failure of Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war also weakened the Kashmiri nationalist movement and Abdullah dropped demands of secession. Under the Indira–Sheikh Accord of 1975, he recognised the region as a part of India, the state legislature requiring the approval of the President to make laws, and the Parliament of India being able to promulgate laws against secessionism. In return, Article 370 was left untouched and Mir Qasim was asked to resign to allow Abdullah to become the Chief Minister. The region remained mostly peaceful until his death in 1982.[24]
By 1999, 94 out of the 97 subjects in the Union List and 260 out of 395 articles of the Constitution of India had become applicable in the state, though it retained some of its autonomy.[25] Article 370 had meanwhile become mostly symbolic.[26]

Thanks. That is a lot of text, and it seems I don't have the same access to the gbooks sources as you might. Is this meant to be an addition with no changes to the existing text? Presumably it is meant for the first subsection of History? CMD (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue with your access to Google Books. It sometimes stops displaying the text if you directly go to a link. I don't know why. It happened to me too. It can be resolved by typing in a word that's in the book, then when results appear hit "Clear search", the pages will appear.
If you want I can post the relevant quotes from the sources to prove what I say is accurately sourced.
This isn't meant to change the existing text. It is meant for the History section, but as the second sub-section called "Erosion of autonomy" after the "Establishment" sub-section. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

[edit]

Change Category:Jammu and Kashmir to Category:Jammu and Kashmir (state). Onlk (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done CMD (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change page name

[edit]

Indian government informed the apex court that that the union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not a “permanent thing". "The union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not a permanent thing. So far as Ladakh is concerned, its UT status is going to remain for some time. So please change article name into Jammu and Kashmir (1952-2019).[1][2][3] Hann23 (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When it becomes a state again, it will be appropriate. There's no rush. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.livemint.com/news/india/article-370-case-union-territory-status-of-j-k-not-permanent-govt-tells-sc-top-points-11693298315314.html
  2. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/article-370-hearing-sc-asks-centre-to-indicate-if-theres-time-frame-to-restore-jammu-and-kashmir-statehood-101693294740059.html
  3. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/india/jammu-kashmir-union-territory-status-supreme-court-article-370/articleshow/103155160.cms

Adding Emblem

[edit]

Please add this as the emblem in the infobox: Emblem of Jammu and Kashmir#1952–2019 Pur 0 0 (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(state)&oldid=1216178771"