Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:54, 1 January 2017

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Robert McClenon Happy New Year!

Suggestion & Request

Revolving around Akshant Kautilya Sharma, this story is an alarm for the Indian nation's authorities to rise before two major problems, namely misoriented youth and the caste-based reservation system take India to the depths of darkness. I also request that an article about the same be written if you consider it fit. It is somewhat popular on Facebook with a cult following for itself on its Facebook page.. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks23121990 (talk • contribs)

References

1. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MYY0DMA
2. https://www.facebook.com/7SecondsAKS/

Referendum

The idea that Pakistan did not fulfil its obligations, does not mean that India can so easily shrug off its obligations to Kashmiris.

References

1. Omair Ahmad, India needs a referendum more than Kashmiris do, Daily O, 23 July 2016.

Strider11

Strider11 came back with new accounts, when his last known sock was blocked in 2009. And he managed to fool the entire Misplaced Pages community for a very long time.

Map

You may like this one. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Impressive! Didn't know you were such a techie! But this goes too fast for me. I need a 'pause' button to understand what is going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

+1, impressive indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: thanks for slowing it down. It is clearer now. But, are we get into trouble with "migrations" vs "expansions" here?

Here is a tid bit. "Sapta Sindhava", the land of seven high places (not seven waters), is first attested in Sumerian as bad imin. H. W. Bailey raises the question whether it was taken over from the nomenclature used by the Indus Valley people. How many Indus Valley people might have been there among those we call "Indo-Aryans"?

Were the BMAC Aryans already separated from the Iranians? Could a borrowed god, "Indra", become a central god for them without a large assimilation of the BMAC people themselves? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Bailey, H. W. (1975), "Indian Sindhu-, Iranian Hindu- (Notes and Communications)", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 38 (3): 610–611, JSTOR 613711

Haak et al. (2015) speak of "migrations," as so many aother sources, so that doesn't seem problematic.

The "Sapta Sindhava" nomenclature is interesting. The BMAC stood on (close?) contact with the IVC; and I'll bet that the Indian Indo-Aryan population was a mix of steppe/BMAC Indo-Aryans and descendants of the IVC people. The Iranians spread much later, centuries later. Anyway, creating this GIF showed me that "the" Indo-European migrations were not a simple story of some Indo-European cowboys raiding thr steppes; instead, it's a very complicated story of population movements, extending over millennia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am not sure I understand yet the timeline involved. I have to read the articles. But a couple of things that occur to me:

• The "Vedic tribes" didn't come to Punjab first. They settled in Afghanistan's Saraswati Valley (Helmand) first. Then they expanded. The "Family books" of Rigveda were entirely composed in Afghanistan.
• The IE's along the southern front weren't merely pastoral, I think. They were traders. They were selling horses and metals to the urban civilisations to the south. (Remember the "horse trader's grave" at the BMAC, the one with the gold tooth fillings?) Here is a theory. The Indo-Aryans ended up in Anatolia because, the IVC died, and there was no market for horses in India. So they went looking for markets. It was only after the Indian branch established their own Kuru State that they had enough money to buy horses. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right about Aghanistan; The map which shows the migrations toward Anatolia (Mitanni) and India may not be entirely accurate. The first part of your theory sounds very interesting; I've never thought about it that way, but it makes sense, also because the Indo-Aryans were entangled with the BMAC, which had far reaching connections. The second part, I don't know. The Kuru state is half a millennium after the first migrations into India, when there was no BMAC anymore. Checkinh Anthony (2007) The Horse ; p.49-50, makes a link with horse-training, so how about the kings there buying horses and hiring the people to train and take care of them? Regarding the BMAC and its trade-network, I guess I read that at Parpola's "The Roots of Hinduism," but I'm not sure. But I did read it somewhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Now have a look at

Very nice!!! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Somnath

You reverted the following edit I made. I did not fully understand your reasoning. Can you elaborate?

In 1299, Alauddin Khilji's army under the leadership of Ulugh Khan defeated Karandev II of the Vaghela dynasty, and sacked the Somnath temple. According to Taj-ul-Ma'sir of Hasan Nizami, the Sultan boasted that "fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword" and "more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors." - previous

vs.

Next was Alauddin Khilji's army, under the leadership of Ulugh Khan, who sacked the temple; the Sultan claimed "fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword" and "more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors." - my edit

(67.81.108.138 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

Actually, it is not a big deal. It is almost the same. (67.81.108.138 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

You expanded the Yagnik and Sheth source for content that is not in the book. You can't do that! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, understood. (67.81.108.138 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

References

1. ^ Yagnik & Sheth 2005, p. 47. sfn error: no target: CITEREFYagnikSheth2005 (help)

Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent

I believe we may have our work cut out for us.

FYI, J.E. Ellam is referred to as "Captain" in a number of places, suggesting a non-historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, please feel free to revert. Not only is this a dated source, it is also a source pushing a particular view, which, according to the author's own admission is WP:FRINGE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed some questionable sentences not supported by their sources, along with copied information and information by non-historian/unreliable sources. I am thinking the article needs a good dose of neutrality. User:Polyenetian seems to be trying to highlight massacres committed by Muslims.

Judging from the copy & pasting, racist comments and outright lies, perhaps an Admin would be better suited to address Polyenetian's POV editing.

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, I think you need to relax bit. I know it is frustrating to keep watching pages like this, but that is how Misplaced Pages works! The guy got a block for his personal attacks and I gave him another warning before Christmas. He seems to be quiet for now. Admins won't block people for merely POV-pushing, but only if they persist with it despite reverts and warnings. Please feel free to give him any more warnings he needs. It is indeed difficult to decide what is neutral when we are dealing with massacres. The reliable sources themselves have that difficulty, let alone our editors! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:And you are lynching Negroes. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport

I would like to move this article to just "Changi Airport" and drop 'Singapore' from the name. This would be in line with airport articles like Heathrow Airport and Indira Gandhi International Airport. The common name for Singapore's only international airport is simply just "Changi Airport" (http://www.changiairport.com/) and the 'Singapore' in front is a redundant addition. I however do not have the necessary privileges required to move the page, so I was wondering if an admin would be able to do it. Thanks Tiger7253 (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiger, you need to follow the procedures stated at WP:Requested moves. If you are sure that it it is not controversial, you can request a "technical move". Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki dialect -> Saraiki language_Saraiki_language-2016-12-24T10:52:00.000Z">

Hi, you're welcome to comment in the move discussion taking place at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)_Saraiki_language"> _Saraiki_language">

Apparently random question

What would I talk to you about ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleareng (talk • contribs) 09:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You can talk about the Indian subcontinent.

References

1. Khan, Ansar Hussain (1999), Rediscovery of India, The: A New Subcontinent, Orient Blackswan, ISBN 978-81-250-1595-6

Confusion

I don't understand this edit summary. I mean, I know the saying but not how it applies here. I'm not around for at few days at least. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, I have tried to keep the good edits, the infobox, the url clean-up etc. (I do this using a case-by-case diff analysis tool I have on my editor.) Have a good Christmas! Hope you are feeling well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cold War

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Cold War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Mir Shah and Shah Mir Dynasty

I need your help. In Shah Mir and Shah Miri dynasty these vandals keep changing the origin of the Dynasty. Is there anyway to protect this article and block these vandals. I don't want to get in trouble for reversing their vandalism multiple times. Plus, origin has already been discussed and agreed. (70.192.71.56 (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

No, it hasn't been agreed. The pro-Swat people seem convinced of their theory, but haven't really discussed anything, nor brought any sources. I will look again to see if there are any better sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir source

You are indeed correct. The source is indeed given, The Hindustan Times, http://www.hindustantimes.com/static/the-young-militants-of-kashmir/ but the money claim is utterly at variance with the what the article actually says. It is a mangled attempt to describe economic incentives given to the area by the Indian Govt as Pakistani subsidies to engage in terrorism. You were correct to revert, however the biggest issue with that edit was the attempt to completely misrepresent a source. Either WP:CIR or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent a source are the issues here. I suspect elements of both. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the editor didn't actually add a source. He/she merely tagged an existing source with the new content. So, it appeared as if it was sourced. This is a standard tactic the clever vandals use! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha! of course. I should have checked the source trail thoroughly before reverting. My apologies. I hope all is well with you! Irondome (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) we

New addition to Kashmir

Do you think the following addition on page 'Kashmir' under subsection '1947-1948' would be a good idea? I think the sentiments of the individual religious and ethnic populatiions in each part of the former princely state need to be included. What do you think?

According to Christopher Snedden, political divisions within the state demonstrated that Jammu and Kashmir was a disunited and essentially undeliverable entity. In 1947 the political scene in the state was dominated by two parties: the National Conference and the Muslim Conference. The National Conference was opposed to accession to Pakistan while the Muslim Conference was in favour of accession to Pakistan. The National Conference was popular in the Kashmir Valley where perhaps 50% of Muslims and many Hindus supported it. The Muslim Conference was popular in Jammu Province. Muslims in Western Jammu as well as Muslims in the Frontier Province Districts strongly wanted to join Pakistan however Muslims inside Kashmir Province were ambivalent about Pakistan, possibly due to their natural attraction to secular thinking and because the popular National Conference leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was pro-India. Snedden states that despite the National Conference's apparent popularity inside the Kashmir Valley, it was not the most popular party there. Prem Nath Bazaz's Kisan Mazdoor Conference also had unquantifiable support in the Valley. The CMG, the best-informed English language newspaper on J&K affairs, on 21 October 1947 reported that the southern Kashmir Valley, which was apparently the 'stronghold' of the Kisan Mazdoor Conference, witnessed a massive upsurge in favour of Pakistan. However, the Hindu and Sikh population of the state, both in Jammu Province and in the Valley, was strongly pro-India, as well as the Buddhist population.

Towns_Hill 12:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC) (Towns Hill)

Hi Towns Hill, yes, indeed, the political fragmentation of the State's Muslims along Jammu-Kashmir axis is well-known and needs to be stated. The views of the State's Hindus is, on the other hand, much less understood, but I can probably dig up some sources for that later.

• I am not comfortable with attaching a percentage figure (50%) to quantify the National Conference support, which seems to be Snedden's personal guess. Copland says that he can't say, and I regard him as more knowledgeable about Kashmir than Snedden. Copland also points out that the election boycott called by the NC in 1946 was nearly 100% successful in the Valley. So 50% is way off the mark.
• The Muslim Conference certainly wanted to join Pakistan, which was its official position by August 1947. And, it had significant support in the Poonch and Mirpur districts. Whether all Muslims in these districts "strongly wanted" to join Pakistan is questionable, but I can go along with the idea that MC was stronger than NC in those districts. (Do you know that MC even tried to team up with the Hindu Sabha in Jammu (the present day BJP)? It wasn't as strong as it is made out to be.)
• By "Frontier districts", Snedden probably means Gilgit and Baltistan (even though the entire Ladakh wazarat was officially a "Frontier ilaqa"). There is no evidence that these people "strongly wanted" to join in Pakistan. Yaqub Khan Bangash says that he can't say. They would have probably liked to stay independent.
• By the way, Sheikh Abdullah wasn't as "pro-India" as he is made out to be. He understood quite well the problems that would arise from acceding to either India or Pakistan. As a matter of fact, Nehru also understood those problems. That is why neither of them forced the issue. If only the Muslim Conference waited for a year or so, some reasonable solution would have been found.
• As for the Kisan Mazdoor Conference, I don't believe what Snedden is claiming. (And, I don't think CMG was particularly well-informed either.) I will try to double check with other sources.

Thanks very much for asking! And, for giving detailed references! -- Kautilya3 (talk)

@Towns Hill, please see this edit to Timeline of the Kashmir conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill, Srinath Raghavan says, On 29 September Sheikh Abdullah was set free. Soon, emissaries from Pakistan were approaching him; but Abdullah remained noncommittal. In fact he had already decided in favour of accession to India and had begun shaping public opinion.

That would seem to support your assertion that he was "pro-India". But does it, really? The same Abdullah blocked Kashmir from getting integrated into India, despite enormous pressure. Three years later, he turned around and wanted to make Kashmir independent. That doesn't seem particularly "pro-India".

Sheikh Abdullah was a politician. And, politics doesn't go linearly, as pro-X or anti-Y. Everything is dependent on the circumstance, based on pushes and pulls. On 29 September, he knew that Kashmir had to accede to India because it couldn't withstand the armed insurgency that was happening in Poonch and Mirpur. The rebels already got 4,000 rifles from Akbar Khan, and they outnumbered the Kashmir State Forces something like 10:1. So, the State had no chance. Abdullah was merely using India to keep Kashmir from falling into Pakistan's hands.

Sadly, India wasn't good enough for Kashmir. It still isn't. Neither is Pakistan. So, we need to stop fighting and let Kashmiris figure out for themselves what they want to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Towns Hill, you have corroboration from Henry Lawrence Scott that the NC enjoyed 50% support in the Valley. So you can go with that figure. (This is a very nice article available in full online. I highly recommend it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir-The Untold Story. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350298985. In 1947, J&K's political scene was dominated by two parties: the All J&K National Conference (commonly called the National Conference) and the All J&K Muslim Conference (commonly called the Muslim Conference). Each conference had a different aspiration for J&K's status: the National Conference opposed J&K joining Pakistan; the Muslim Conference favoured this option. While it is impossible to quantify the exact support that either party enjoyed, between them they had over 20,000 paid-up members. The National Conference was strongest in the Kashmir Valley, where perhaps as many as 50 per cent of all Muslims and many Hindus supported this party; conversely, outside the Kashmir Valley its support was much less, with perhaps five to 15 per cent of the population supporting it. The Muslim Conference had a lot of support in Jammu Province and much less in the Kashmir Valley.
2. Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir-The Untold Story. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350298985. Similarly, Muslims in Western Jammu Province, particularly in Poonch, many of whom had martial capabilities, and Muslims in the Frontier Districts Province strongly wanted J&K to join Pakistan.
3. Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir-The Untold Story. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350298985. An important trait evident among Kashmiris partially explains why Kashmiri Muslims were ambivalent about Pakistan in 1947.
4. Snedden, Christopher (2013). Kashmir-The Untold Story. HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350298985. One significant result of the concept of Kashmiriness was that Kashmiris may have been naturally attracted to secular thinking.
5. Snedden, Christopher (2012). The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. Hurst. p. 24. ISBN 9781849041508. While the National Conference appeared to enjoy much popularity in the Kashmir Valley, and while the Muslim Conference had problems in garnering support there, the National Conference was not necessarily the most popular party there. The two parties in favour of J&K joining Pakistan, the Muslim Conference and Prem Nath Bazaz's Kisan Mazdoor Conference, also had (unquantifiable) support. According to The Times' Special Correspondent in late October 1947, it was 'a moot point how far Abdullah's influence extends among the Kashmiri Muslims...but in Srinagar his influence is paramount'. The CMG, the best-informed English-language newspaper on J&K affairs, on 21 October 1947 reported that the southern Kashmir Valley, which apparently was the 'stronghold' of the Kisan Mazdoor Conference, 'last week witnessed a massive upsurge in favour of Pakistan'. However, the CMG's report predated the tribal invasion of Kashmir Province by one day, after which support for pro-Pakistan parties may have lessened, at least in the short term, even though southern Kashmir was not directly affected by this invasion.
6. Snedden, Christopher (2012). The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. Hurst. p. 35. ISBN 9781849041508. Those Hindus and Sikhs who comprised a majority in the eastern parts of Jammu province were strongly pro-Indian. Their dislike of Pakistan and pro-Pakistani J&K Muslims was further heightened by the arrival of angry and agitated Hindu and Sikh refugees from western (Pakistani) Punjab after 15 August 1947. Accession to Pakistan therefore, would almost certainly have seen these people either fight to retain their land or take flight to India. In the event of accession to Pakistan, Hindu Pandits and Sikhs in the Kashmir Valley, most of whom probably favoured J&K joining India, might also have fled to pro-Indian parts of J&K, or to India. Although their position is less clear, Ladakhi Buddhists probably favoured India also.
7. Copland, Ian (1991), "The Abdullah Factor: Kashmiri Muslims and the Crisis of 1947", in D. A. Low (ed.), Political Inheritance of Pakistan, Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 218–254, ISBN 978-1-349-11556-3
8. Bangash, Yaqoob Khan (2010), "Three Forgotten Accessions: Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar", The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 38 (1): 117–143, doi:10.1080/03086530903538269 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
9. Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 106, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
10. Rakesh Ankit (May 2010). "Henry Scott: The forgotten soldier of Kashmir". Epilogue. 4 (5): 44-49.

Arbitrary break

1. Unfortunately Kashmir is jumbled up with Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Azad-Kashmir so much that the issue becomes complex and hard to understand both academically and politically. (Towns Hill)

I agree. We do need to straighten out the extent of "Kashmir" here. See the discussions at Talk:Kashmir/Archive 5#Extent of "Kashmir" and Talk:Kashmir Valley#Arbitrary break, where Fowler&fowler and I appear to have switched sides. I still prefer the present Kashmir page to be retitled Kashmir region, and a new article to be developed on Kashmir proper. At the moment, we don't have a page that is truly devoted to "Kashmir" and that is a great disservice to Kashmiris. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

2. There is an increasing realisation amongst Valley Kashmiris that Jammu, Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan were never really 'Kashmiri' and have no real reason to participate in Kashmiri nationalism. Jammu was culturally and ethnically an extension of Punjab (it was united with Kashmir very artificially) and the Muslim-Hindu divisions in it were similar to what happened in Punjab. So Valley Kashmiris are increasingly realising that Jammu and Azad Kashmir (also Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan) should be allowed to go with the countries they naturally feel inclined to (and which they are already administered by). However, in 'Kashmiri' history the feeling that Kashmiris have lost their political independence dates back actually to Mughal times. And it is increasingly felt that this sense of political independence should be exclusive to ethnic Kashmiris. I think the information on this should be firmly included in the Misplaced Pages entries on this subject. (Towns Hill)

I am glad they are realising that. Until recently, it was the JKLF irredentism that ruled the day. It would be good to see evidence that they are realising it.

However, thinking in terms of "countries" won't get anybody anywhere. All the parts are still interconnected and they have always been. (See, e.g., the Shah Mir page). I don't think they can live without each other. All the parts are really tiny, which don't have enough weight to survive in the modern world. So thinking in terms of "countries" with rigid national boundaries won't solve any problems. The idea of a "condominium" has often been mentioned. During the Musharraf times they came close to it. I think Modi has enough power to do it. But it is not clear if Nawaz Sharif does.

Also, the Kashmiris are yet to prove that they can govern themselves. In six decades of independence, they haven't yet produced a single decent Chief Minister. They keep blaming India and Pakistan for all their problems, but they don't yet understand their own internal problems. If India tramples on their rights (in a manner of speaking) that is a result of they themselves trampling on the rights of Jammuites. Autonomy for Jammu was promised in the 1952 Delhi agreement, but never delivered. That can be the first step towards a condominium idea. And, Kashmiris can do it themselves without anybody's help. Why don't they? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

3. There are scholarly sources (which I think should be added onto Misplaced Pages) which state that respected individuals such as Dixon advocated that the LOC should be finalised as an international border except for the Kashmir Valley which should be the place which gets a plebiscite to choose between not two, but three, options (i.e independence). The sources (such as Snedden) further expand on the point that India also advocated for the inclusion of Kashmiri-speaking areas in Azad Kashmir in such a plebiscite. I believe Dixon was one of the few people who actually realised what the Kashmir issue was all about. (Towns Hill)

The so-called "Dixon Plan" was actually Nehru's proposal. And Snedden is wrong to think that Pakistan rejected it. (He doesn't provide a citation.) The reason the Dixon Plan fell apart is clearly stated: He also assured Liaquat that the voting would be fair: in the plebiscite area, government functionaries would be replaced by UN appointees. Dixon should have known better; for Nehru had explicitly ruled this out during the discussions on an overall plebiscite. Unsurprisingly, Nehru rejected the idea yet again. See also Noorani. Hundreds of pages of UN reports have been written which document this position of India. Nobody in India would ever accept any conditions that undermine the accession of Kashmir. You can ask them to make political concessions. But you can't ask them to negate the accession. The UN mediators never understood this point, including Dixon. Or, perhaps he did. But Pakistan didn't want to risk a plebiscite with Sheikh Abdullah in power. Strangely enough, it expected that India should risk it. Nehru was happy to accept the risk. But he needed an honourable settlement, not one where India could be seen as being bullied, by either Pakistan or the world powers.

Unfortunately, the more Pakistan tries, the more it gives the impression of bullying India. And the Indian position hardens ever more. The best thing Pakistan can do for Kashmir is to back off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

4. It should be noted that while Sheikh Abdullah at times did certainly advocate a pro-India position, the Kashmiri population was ambivalent about both Pakistan and India (though both certainly had supporters in the Valley. The former even had the backing of the socialist Kisan Mazdoor Conference led by Kashmiri Pandit Prem Nath Bazaz and that party was very popular in the southern section of the Valley). The natural allegiance of most ethnic Kashmiri Muslims was always in favour of an independent identity. They were ambivalent about Pakistan and never were truly enthusiastic about being with India either. Even Sheikh Abdullah made sure that Kashmir would get maximum autonomy if it were to join India (but for many Kashmiris even this was not enough). In other words he didn't join India wholeheartedly. (Towns Hill)

I agree with most of that. But I am not sure of the bit: but for many Kashmiris even this was not enough. It represents a static view of the situation, but things are never static. Between 1953–1974, there was an active Plebiscite Front, which coloured people's perceptions. That still didn't stop them from supporting India in the two wars. Between 1974–1989, there is considerable evidence that people were reconciled to being in India. But by 1989, the National Conference had become increasingly corrupt, and people sought political alternatives. National Conference didn't let any opposition come up, and things came to a breaking point. Very little of this actually had anything to do with India. But everybody finds it advantageous to blame India for it. I am not denying that there was political game-playing by the Congress party, which is quite deplorable but it is not uncommon in India just as elsewhere. The reasons for the blow-up in 1989 are the inherent problems of Kashmir's own politics, but then it has been exploited by all parties afterwards.

If Pakistan backs off from Kashmir and normalises relations with India, which is in its own interest as well as India's, then Kashmiris will get an opportunity to sort out their own problems. As long as Pakistan keeps meddling, I can't see any change happening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

5. There was a sizeable ethnic Kashmiri diaspora in (Pakistani) Punjab during Partition and historically ethnic Kashmiris were discriminated against by Punjabis (of all religions-Muslim, Hindu and Sikh) and Kashmiris in Punjab were known by the derogatory label of 'Hato' (the people of Azad Kashmir and Jammu region also used this term for Valley Kashmiris) and the community was stereotyped as being 'cowardly'. I believe this attitude carried over into Liaquat Ali Khan's attitude when he stated “…he people of Kashmir were bound to vote, in the plebiscite, in favour of whatever administration was then in power. The Kashmiris were an illiterate and oppressed people, and they would be bound to favor the authority in possession. If an Englishman went as administrator, they would vote to join the United Kingdom,”. Liaquat Ali Khan was from the UP-East Punjab area and carried the same attitude towards Kashmiris which stereotyped them as a cowardly and irresponsible people. Similar attitudes were held in India by the 1950s. I think the above quote from Liaquat Ali Khan is important to convey Pakistan's perspective on Kashmiris in 1947. Note that this quote is from the December 1947 meeting between Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru (the meeting is given only a cursory mention on the Kashmir Conflict page). (Towns Hill)

6. It should also be noted that not all Pandits are pro-India. Even today there are some Kashmiri Pandit nationalist activists (example Nitasha Kaul), just as not all Kashmiri Muslims are pro-secessionist. However, this fact is watered down often because religion is a strong source of strength for Kashmiri nationalism. (Towns Hill)

In Kashmir, I root for a new generation of politics represented by people like Shehla Rashid Shora. In Pakistan, likewise, I root for the new generation represented by people like Alia Amirali. These people recognise the real issues of the society: governance, development, fighting corruption/nepotism/discrimination etc.; not religion, not nationalism, not sloganeering and certainly not terrorism. The question is how long it will take for people to sign up to this new brand of politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Snedden, Christopher (2015). Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781849046220. Dixon proposed that, first, in those areas of J&K where the people were strongly and clearly inclined to join either India or Pakistan, then these regions should actually join the nation to which these people were inclined; and second, that only people in Kashmir need to be polled. Secular India was prepared to countenance this suggestion under certain conditions, chiefly to do with its security forces and administration being in charge of Kashmir while the plebiscite was conducted. Initially, New Delhi also wanted an area under Pakistan's control included in the poll to be conducted for people in the Kashmir Valley. This area comprised the 'part of Muzaffarabad district to bring in...the natural geographical feature provided by the river Kishenganga and its watershed to the north. While this was unclear, it may have included Muzaffarabad town, most of which was to the south of the Kishenganga, plus some additional Kashmiri-speaking areas. Essentially, it was a bargaining position, as India quickly came to accept a plebiscite for the Kashmir Valley region only. Pakistan, however, rejected any such regional-only plebiscite. Rather, it wanted the plebiscite conducted for all J&K-ites. If this was not possible, then Pakistan wanted a division of J&K along religious lines-as a result of which Pakistan naturally would have obtained all Muslim-majority areas, including the prized region of Kashmir.
2. Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 188–189, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7, After a four-day meeting in Delhi with the Indian and Pakistani prime ministers, Dixon announced that a state-wide plebiscite was impossible. Thereafter, Nehru proposed a plan for partition-cum-plebiscite: In Jammu the casefire line would become the boundary; Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas would go to Pakistan, and Ladakh to India; the plebsicite would be confirmed solely to the valley. This would minimize refugee movement while simplifying demilitarization and adminsitrative arrangements. When the Pakistanis opposed the plan Dixon offered to throw in "much of Jammu west of the Chenab river.
3. A. G. Noorani, The Dixon Plan, Frontline, 12 October 2002.
4. Shankar, Mahesh (2016), "Nehru's legacy in Kashmir: Why a plebiscite never happened", India Review, 15 (1): 1–21, doi:10.1080/14736489.2016.1129926 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
5. Aziz, Zaib un Nisa (1 October 2016). "The pursuit of Kashmir". Herald.

AE case

I have mentioned you in an AE case I just filed: Link. Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sarah Jane Brown. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:BlueGreenYellowRed

This User:BlueGreenYellowRed keeps on edit warring with me and lots of other editors. Literally that is what he/she does everyday on wiki. Plus, he/she uses multiple IPs to edit war against wiki editors as well. Can you please help in telling him/her to stop edit warring? This is not productive to wiki at all. (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

Hi, anybody can give a warning for edit-warring. Please use the templates

• {{subst:uw-3rr|Article|Additional text}} -- for 3RR warning
• {{subst:uw-ew|Article|Additional text}} -- for generic warning

I am not an admin. So I shouldn't get involved in matters that are too far off my areas of interest. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Who can I contact? An admin you can recommend who oversees India related articles? (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

SpacemanSpiff and NeilN are active in the India pages. But you need to provide evidence of misbehaviour. Giving an edit-warring notice is the first step. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man! Always appreciate your help. (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

I see you already gave him/her a warning. I also put my warning there as well here. Thanks again! (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

Why do you think my warning was removed? I followed your recommendation. here (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

It seems that you copy-pasted my warning, and somebody thought you were game-playing. In any case, the next step is to open a talk page discussion on the article's talk page. If the user doesn't respond but continues to edit-war, then you can approach an admin. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that.

Also, MBlaze Lightning, why did you undo my warning? (2600:1001:B025:A55A:F9A9:484D:8452:5820 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

Need advise

Hello again,

I think User:BlueGreenYellowRed, User:TurkPathan, and this IP are the same. Because when I check their location it seems like the same spot and similar edits. If they are the same individual, this is not allowed on wiki. Can you please tell them to cut it off (using multiple accounts to edit war with me)? (2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

Rechecking the location and edit history, I "think" all of these accounts belongs to User:Barthateslisa. (2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

Ok, I will look into it. Relax and have a Happy New Year! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! It was great working with you for the last few years. I keep getting your "thank you for your contribution" posts. Always appreciate it. (2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

One question. What do you mean by there are the "same spot". How do you know the location of editors? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

On the bottom of the contribution page. There are account info esp. for the IPs. (2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

I found another IP of this user. (2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC))

Caution

It isn't entirely clear to me what your issue is with User:Paine Ellsworth. In any case, if you have already gotten this notice in the past twelve months, my apologies.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)