Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tyler Durden (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 29 May 2017 (→Mirpur and Rajouri: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

India: Jammu and Kashmir Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in September 2016. This article has been flagged for a reassessment of its current rating.

Sources

Comments on the current version.

For events that happened in 1947, we need to use historically reliable sources. At a minimum, they must be scholarly sources. Other sources, if they are valuable and appear reliable, can be described with WP:in-text attribution.

• Saeed Naqvi's book is copy-righted by author and the publisher disclaimed responsibility for accuracy. So it must be used with extreme caution.
• The passage quotes Horace Alexander's news report from 1947 with in-text attribution. It is not proper to state it as fact. Moreover, the report says 2,37,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated – unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border. So this figure includes both the Muslims that got killed as well as those that migrated.

As I have remarked here, there were 700,000 Muslims in the Indian-administered portion of the Jammu province. So it is theoretically impossible for 237,000 Muslims to have died and another 300,000 to havae migrated, and still retain 33.5% of the population in India.

I am going to replace all this folklore content by reliably sourced figures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Census analysis

@Vamsee614: I have removed your personal analysis of the census data. In the first place, you are not allowed to present your own interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY source data. Secondly, your analysis is faulty. The 1941 census and the 1961 census measure different geographical areas, the entire Jammu province in case of 1941 and the Indian-controlled region in case of 1961. You can't compare them.

On another note, Christopher Snedden states (the cited book, p. 50), that the total number of Muslims in the Hindu-majority districts of the Jammu province (Jammu, Kathua, Udhampur and Chenani) was 346,000. It is theoretically impossible for 200,000 Muslims to have been 'massacred' and another 300,000 to have migrated. There are wild exaggerations all over the place. Please use reliable sources, and avoid propaganda and half-baked reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Kautilya for your appreciation and guidance. I think majority of the citations listed out in the references section of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/1947_Jammu_massacres particularly qualify as reliable and neutral sources and I have studied them thoroughly. However I will surely further research on the content and try to develop it. I would like you to kindly elaborate what you meant by historically reliable sources, which as you mean are lacking currently. And I'm sorry for spreading out any half-baked information to other pages. I sincerely apologize. I'm still new to editing in Misplaced Pages and will refrain from doing anything as such in the future. Anyhow I'm not trying to sensationalize the incident as you have opined, I'm fully aware of the sensitiveness involved in the content and so I'm being much careful and absolutely neutral. After all its a 60-year old event doesn't mean it can be conveniently ignored, its occurrence had deep impact in the origins of the Kashmir conflict. My only intent is to bring this historically significant and event to readers knowledge despite being covered up due to political censorship as I can see. Apparently there are very few reports in the media or the historical accounts in India regarding such a mass killing which has been highly consequential. Despite having so many repercussions, it is quite seldom mentioned in any of the discussions about the concerned phases in our history. Therefore I feel that it is to be elaborated and given its due importance in the history, at least by simply acknowledging and stating that it occurred so, and by making people just aware of its occurrence to enhance their knowledge. I believe it is one of the fundamental mottos of Misplaced Pages. Thank you once again for the help and please continue to provide support with your valuable suggestions, if you may. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsee614 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vamsee, yes it is an important event and it needs to be documented, but we don't do anybody any service by putting up random propaganda materials on Misplaced Pages. As I have pointed out on the article talk page, the numbers that are often thrown around are theoretically impossible. Chattha's thesis is a good source, and Christopher Snedden's book is an excellent source. You need to read them thoroughly, not just take little bits and pieces.

• We also need to make it clear that the violence in Jammu was an extension of the partition violence in Punjab and NWFP. It didn't come out of the blue. All said and done, Jammu still has 33.5% population Muslim (and Poonch is still 90% Muslim), which is infinitely better than what the neighbouring Punjab has managed.
• And, you can't take any British source as being neutral and third-party. The British were up to their necks in both India and Pakistan and various individuals bought into their stories. So, we can't just narrate what the sources say, but we also need to dig into what kind of a source it is, where the information is coming from (read the footnotes).
• We have reasonably good information that at least 70,000 were killed (Snedden's book, page 53, table 2.2). That is about the only thing I am certain of. The Pakistanis claim that another 200,000 migrated to West Punjab. But 270,000 is already too high a figure. There weren't enough Muslims in the Hindu-majority districts of Jammu to give such a high figure.
• The timing also needs to be studied carefully. The earliest 'massacre' in Table 2.2 occurred on 20 October. In contrast, Liaquat Ali Khan ordered the invasion on 12 September, more than a month earlier. (See the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict). Any suggestion that the massacres were the reason for the invasion is plain false. It is propaganda.
• It is also not clear that the Muslims started migrating because of the massacres. The first exodus of Muslims was reported on the 26 September. (Again, see the Timeline.) By then the Maharaja had appointed Mehr Chand Mahajan as the Prime Minister and he was telling New Delhi that he was willing to accede to India. That is reason enough for pro-Pakistan Muslims to migrate.

You need to read the policy pages WP:NPOV etc. to get an idea of how to approach a subject like this. Even though the topic needs to be documented, the frantic piece at which you started pushing unreliable and half-baked information to tons of pages was a serious problem. For all historical content, you need to use WP:HISTRS. Saeed Naqvi, for example, does not qualify. Both Chattha and Snedden are fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vamsee614: After comparing the figures from the 1941 census and the 2011 census, I think the figure of 237,000 is believable, provided it is understood as the number killed plus the number migrated. The author of the The Times report is apparently a partisan, which explains the sensational wording. The number I get from the comparison is 192,000 which is likely to be an underestimate due to the variability in the population growth rates. However, there were no additional 200,000–300,000 that are supposed to have migrated. The 237,000 figure represents the total loss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"The removal of the Muslim population in Jammu region is evidenced clearly in the 1961 Census of India. In Jammu province, about 123 villages were ‘completely depopulated’, while the decrease in the number of Muslims in Jammu district alone was over 100,000.(59) It is possible to point out that the inter-religious violence that occurred in Jammu included a possible ‘genocide’ of Muslims in September-October 1947. The Maharaja of the Dogra Hindu state was complicit in the targeted violence against Kashmiri Muslims. Out of a total of 800,000 who tried to migrate, more than 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated by all the forces of the Dogra State, headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs.(60) There is evidence of similar behaviour in other Princely States. A police report pointed out that over 250,000 Muslims alone were missing in the Sikh state of Patiala.(61)

--- Pg 184, Partition and Its Aftermath: Violence, Migration and the Role of Refugees in the Socio-Economic Development of Gujranwala and Sialkot Cities, 1947-1961 by Ilyas Ahmad Chattha.

you don't find this reasonable?

Vamsee614 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I have seen this stuff on web sites. It didn't occur to me to go look for it in Chattha's thesis. I am surprised that he was allowed to put it in as it is. This is bad. But note that this is one source among many. WP:NPOV tells you to study all the sources and include what represents the scholarly consensus. I am afraid Chattha is mixing fact with fiction.

• Let us interrogate the key figure: the number of Muslims killed. He says 237,000 were killed, and ignores the escape clause that appeared in The Times article: unless they escaped to Pakistan. Where is Chattha accounting for the people that escaped? We have a reliable analysis that appeared in Dawn in 1950 or so, that said that 200,000 refugees arrived from J&K in September-November. If so, that would leave only 37,000 unaccounted for. (I am not taking the Dawn figures at face value either, but that is the analysis and reconciliation that Chattha has failed to do. Snedden does it.)
• Where did the figure of 800,000 come from? That appears to be the total number of Muslims in the Indian-controlled Jammu province, chopping off the Poonch district into half. But Poonch was under the control of rebels throughout 1947, except for a garrison stuck in the fortified Poonch town. Were Muslims trying to migrate from their own territory? What about Rajouri, where the Muslims made up 68% of the population (or higher)? Were they trying to migrate from there too? If so, why didn't they? Bhimber is only a short hop away.
• He cites the The Times article for both the figures. But, Snedden, reading the same article says that 411,000 Muslims were vulnerable. No mention of whether they were trying to "migrate". Chattha mentions this figure at the bottom of page 180 (of the thesis), but ignores it. This is substandard.
• Chattha tells us that over 100,000 Muslims decreased in the "Jammu district alone". He is correct there. My calculations indicate that about 140,000 Muslims disappeared from the Jammu district. But what about the other districts? He is citing the 1961 census. So he knows the picture for all the districts. Why not tell us? By saying "Jammu district alone", he is trying to imply that things were equally bad in all the other places. But they weren't.
• Our sources also tell us stuff like this: To a limited extent threatening statements against the Kashmir Government issued on Radio Pakistan by Musim leaders who had migrated to Pakistan also added fuel to the fire. “Every time one of these leaders issued a sharp statement from Pakistan radio, firing on Muslim neighbourhood intensified.” The so-called "Muslim leaders" were the Muslim Conference leaders, to whom the Jammu Muslims subscribed. The Muslim Conference leaders were waging a war on the State, ignoring the fact that they had "hostages" inside. The conflict was also political, not purely communal.

If you don't have access to the Snedden artices/books, I suggest that you read at least the Kashmir Life article. It is not ideal, but it will at least give you some breadth that you are currently lacking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I also tried to find out if Chattha has anything to say about the fate of non-Muslims in Mirpur and Poonch, but I couldn't. Perhaps you can dig into that. 20% of the Mirpur population was non-Muslim and 10% of Poonch jagir was non-Muslim. There were massacres there too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Ahmad, Khalid Bashir (5 November 2014), "circa 1947: A Long Story", Kashmir Life, retrieved 11 October 2016

Estimate of number of Jammu Muslims killed

@Kautilya3: "If we presume that the first figure of 333,964 included the roughly 100,000 East Punjab refugees safely escorted by Jammu and Kashmir on their way to Pakistan in 1947, we can estimate the number of Jammu Muslims killed to be a few tens of thousands." - isn't this line WP:OR? Also we are taking too many figures (our census estimate of 'lost Muslims', counted figure of refugees in Pakistan & the Scott's refugee figure of 'at least 100,000 Muslims from East Punjab') at face value in this. This is just a doubt. Thank you. — Vamsee614 (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That is an arguable point. If you are concerned about it, we will need to get wider opinion about it. See WP:SYNTHNOT, which explains what forms of synthesis are allowed and what are not. In my interpretation, drawing a conclusion implied by the sources is allowed. I think people will differ on whether it is implied or not.

Logically, the if...then... statement, which premises a conclusion on assumptions, is a valid consequence from the sourced data. But I admit that not all readers of the English language understand the if...then... statement in such a precise way. I can try rewording it, with some amount of backup from Snedden, who makes similar arguments.

Are we taking the figures at face value? I don't think so. My "few tons of thousands" is quite a vague estimate. Its purpose is to say "hundreds of thousands" is impossible (which is what most sources report, unfortunately).

Note that 333,964 is the lowest figure reported for refugees in Pakistan. Others go up to a million. The 100,000 is evidently a rough estimate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried the rewording and did a few more additions in my edits. Review them if you have time. — Vamsee614 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

unfair reediting

can vamsee614 tell me why my edit is deleted? he has to explain how a hindu traitor gandhi's comments are needed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Army (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the edit was against the policies of Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:REL, WP:ROC and WP:NPOV thoroughly. Regarding Gandhi, I will only say that it is a fallacious argument. — Vamsee614 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

bullshit. why are you giving rules for everything? do you know that wikipedia is not all about rules? we should not follow rules strictly in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules gandhi was a pervert who used to sleep with young naked girls in his bed during his old age. he and his words deserves no respect from anyone. it has proof in wikipedia only. https://en.wikipedia.org/Mahatma_Gandhi#Brahmacharya.2C_celibacy now say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Army (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear friend, please calm down and take a chill pill. There are reasonable standards that tell us when we can use WP:IAR and when we cannot. It must be used with commonsense to make a positive change in Misplaced Pages. I hope this page will help you. Since, I'm also a newbie in here and I'm not thorough with more technicalities & policies of Misplaced Pages, I'm pinging @Kautilya3:, my senior and mentor, to say a word and help you on this matter.

Regarding Gandhi, I know that he went crazy in that aspect of his personal life. But that has got nothing to do with his statesmanship and with what you have accused him of. So cool. Having said that, this is not a talk page related to Gandhi article and we're not supposed to discuss it here. So I'm ending it there. If you wish to discuss with me about that or any other subject, you can ping me on my talk page and I'll reply when I'm available. Strictly speaking, we're not allowed to discuss in such manner even there because any Misplaced Pages talk page cannot be used as a forum. But since editors of Misplaced Pages do not get any reward for their contributions except pleasure and knowledge, I believe that editors can learn through discussions and sharing views in user talk pages, which will further contribute for a better Misplaced Pages. So I'll ignore this rule for you, as I think doing so will help in improving and maintaining Misplaced Pages, as the policy states.

With that, I'll take a leave here. Have a nice day. :-) — Vamsee614 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Gandhi is a notable person, regarded as the father of the nation. His opinions are valued, and cited by scholars. So do we. I think that is all there is to be said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw your talk pages. I understand you two already are friends connected by your pseudo liberal and anti national ideology. you are abusing army. you are threat to the nation. no matter how much you cry kashmir is an integral part of india. no power on earth can change that. one day army will take pok also. kautliya3 gandhi is the father of partition. he is not the father of india. he is the father of pakistan. he is a hindu traitor who broke great akhand bharat. all people know that. vamsee614 who wants to discuss with idiots like you? people like you are meant to be slammed not discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Army (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources unreliable

Scholar Ilyas Chattha ? How can be called a Scholar or a expert in the subject.He has done his PHD only in 2009 in the Universities of Warwick and Southampton, Dr Ilyas Chattha obtained a PhD in 2009 .Now there are thousands who have done there PHD all of them cannot be called a scholar.He was only a Lecturer not even a Professor. 182.65.169.12 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

See the policy on Reliable sources. Is there particular content that you are objecting to? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

FEW TENS OF THOUSANDS

someone please cite the source which gave this analysis. I didn't see that in any book. if it is not from a good source, it is someone's self synthesis(https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_useless) and has to be properly modified for better reliability. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:6202:1C6A:2DFB:3BBB:120F:F39 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"To get a rough idea, if we assume that the first figure of 333,964 included the approximately 100,000 East Punjab refugees, we can estimate the number of Jammu Muslims killed to be a few tens of thousands." I was mentioning about this sentence. regards.

There is already a discussion regarding this in this talk page. You might want to have a look at it.

Coming to the issue, its not written from any source. I understand your concern. But it was inserted to convey that 200,000+ Muslims killed, as indicated by many propagandist sources, is an exaggerated and technically impossible estimate. So the part "To get a rough idea" was added. Also it is not own synthesis, since we did not mention any figure. "a few tens of thousands" is a very vague wording. However if you can suggest a better modification for the sentence that sounds more appropriate, please feel free to do so. Thanks.

By the way, since you also seem to have some idea on Misplaced Pages policies, you might be pleased to create a profile with a username and start editing, instead of using your IP. Cheers! — Vamsee614 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, the essay you have quotes states, To avoid this sort of error, we need a reliable source who has made the same inference, rather than having editors bring together disparate pieces of information themselves. This helps provide a clear solution to many content disputes.. A scholarly reference that makes the same kind of calculation (Copland) has been cited. So, your objection doesn't hold any water. However, Copland noted that the result is a surplus rather than a deficit, which doesn't make sense. Copland did not suspect that the Pakistani refugee figure could have included East Punjabi refugees that went through Jammu (said to be 100,000). If we deduct them, then we get a figure of about 10,000 killed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@kautilya it certainly holds water. Ian Copland's analysis does not have an estimate of "a few tens of thousands" in the book. The 10,000 estimate you are telling me is nowhere near accurate. The notional figure of 246,356 is a roughest estimate and the "at least 100,000 Muslim refugees of East Punjab" is also a vaguest number to take it to be precise for comparison with other numbers and find an estimate. however I am glad that you have the judgement to not put that 10,000 there. But the biggest problem is Ian Copland in the book which is cited there, tells that "we can safely say that the death toll is 80,000" in the same page 153. this figure is totally concealed while you are saying Ian Copland is the source to that estimate where instead a self made analysis is written. I did not add or remove any words. I just added a small tag to produce any reference if possible. you could have just said those words are added in good faith by self and removed my tag. but you have neither the right nor reason to ridicule my objection. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.75.209 (talk • contribs)

IP, I don't believe there was any ridicule in anything I have written. Neither was any ridicule meant.

I believe all the estimates are based on the two Englishmen's estimates of 70,000 in seven incidents. The Two Englishmen were Horace Alexander and Richard Symonds. Most scholars and analysts take their figure as a rock solid one. There the matter ends, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. (Personally, I don't think all that much reliance can be placed on their estimates.) I don't have any objection to adding Ian Copland's estimate, which is in any case lower than Ved Bhasin's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@vamsee I don't know a better modification. I just wanted to check if there is a reference to those words and read that book. I read many books on this event but could not see any reliable number for deaths. different sources give different estimates. nobody really knows anything. again even the Ian Copland's 80,000 claim has no source or basis that he offers, while ironically he blames others for the same reason. all this is guessing business. so I cannot tell a better estimate. the range 50,000-100,000 in Misplaced Pages is actually a good estimate. more than that anyone cannot tell anything. i have some idea about wikipedia policies because i did a case study and project in my college on them. I don't want to come back with a profile since people here misunderstand me and treat me like a fool. thank you for responding to me with respect unlike the other person. regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.75.209 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool mate, calm down. And the thing with not using a profile is, every time you will appear from a different IP, as it seems to be happening in your case now. Anyways, your wish. Cheers! — Vamsee614 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, all the state subjects that have migrated to Pakistan have a right to vote for AJK assembly elections.

Under the Act, displaced state subjects (muhājarīn-e-riyāsat-e-jammū-o-kashmīr) living in Pakistan elect representatives to twelve seats in the Assembly. These seats are not linked to residential electoral areas but rather are allocated according to constituencies based on the last district of residence in the former Princely State. Six of the seats are allocated for refugees displaced from the Kashmir Province and six for refugees displaced from the Jammu Province.

So, somebody that has access to the number of voters should be able to bring the data, which we can add to the district populations. That will give us a better estimate of how many people died in the massacres. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Even then, I think we'll never know how many of those people did not enroll for the voting in those elections. And that will remain as another dilemma. — Vamsee614 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that is the reader's dilemma, not ours. We just report what is known. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Robinson, Cabeiri deBergh (2013), Body of Victim, Body of Warrior: Refugee Families and the Making of Kashmiri Jihadists, University of California Press, pp. 45–46, ISBN 978-0-520-27421-1

Districts

@Vamsee614: Please don't add wikilinks to the current day districts, because the 1947 districts were totally different. You can link to the town names if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Vamsee614 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Please ensure all sources used are WP:HISTRS and you do not engage in WP:OR. Try to represent scholarly consensus. Faizan (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS need to be used where they are available. Please read the guidelines.

On the other hand, when they are not scholarly sources, I am happy to discuss any questions or doubts and reach a reasonable compromise. However, that discussion needs to happen here, not in edit summaries and edit wars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Faizan, nobody was engaging in WP:OR here. All the content was written from the sources cited, and the only debate is regarding the scholarship of the sources, no self analysis or synthesis was made. Now in this edit, I particularly mentioned that the details of figures in the infobox shall be discussed in the body of the article, and need not be necessarily present in the box itself. We cannot have the "unverified" tag for a figure in the article permanently, it has to be resolved by reaching consensus on the talk page, or else the figure has to be removed. I have also requested not to add the tag in the infobox again by edit warring, and asked to discuss on talk page for any objections regarding the same. I'm not sure, even then, why you're unnecessarily engaging in edit warring! — TylerDurden10 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

@Kautilya3: Regarding this edit of yours, how is it uncorroborated when the source itself clearly endorses and approves the observation? - — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The "source" meaning the author, S. R. Bakshi? Die he author this appendix? Did he endorse it? Where? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just before the large-sale massacres in the Province got under way, the Maharaja himself toured about the villages with truck-loads of arms and ammunition following him, and personally held consultations with the local officials, distributed arms and in some cases fired the first shot. He was seen on this mission in Akhnoor, Bhimbar and Jammu tahsil and later in the Sambha, Kathua and Hiranagar tahsil.

Yes. There are the author's own words from the book. He is not quoting anyone there! — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, why is this put into an appendix? Why doesn't the appendix have a title? Why is the appendix not referred to in the main body? And, why does it say (on p. 286):

I at once accepted the proposal for an impartial inquiry and asked the Prime Minister of Kashmir to nominate a representative for this purpose.

The author, S. R. Bakshi, accepted a proposal from the Prime Minister of Kashmir? You are joking! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you are joking! Liaquat Ali Khan accepted a proposal from the Prime Minister of Kashmir. The line you are quoting in taken from the para which is in inverted commas in the book, with clearly specifying at the top of the page as "extract from the Premier of Pakistan's (means Pakistani Prime Minister's ) Broadcast, dated 4th November 1947." While it is not the case with the content I quoted. Those words are not in inverted commas, like the ones you quoted. How did you even miss this?

why is this put into an appendix? Why doesn't the appendix have a title? Why is the appendix not referred to in the main body?: As you know, appendix is the section at the end of a book that gives additional information on the topic explored in the contents of the text. Appendix doesn't have a title or it is not referred to in the main body — doesn't mean it is not written by the author, or it is not a part of the book. The unquoted content in this appendix section is apparently written by the author of the book, since it is nowhere mentioned otherwise.

However, also, 'any primary content is observed in a source's appendix' does not alter the fact that it is observed by that source. I want to point out that, for due weight and a NPOV, I carefully added that content as a footnote and with attribution (According to the accounts of refugees...), same as you added this content earlier. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the quotation part. So why is this appendix reproducing Pakistan prime minister's broadcast, but not the Indian prime minister's broadcast?

And, why are words from it being reproduced in West Punjab government's "intelligence reports" (dated 1948)  ? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's true! Seems like the whole appendix is taken from the reports and prints of West Punjab Government. Even the one that is in debate . Bakshi did not write it, I was terribly mistaken!

But you did forgot to answer to this:

However, also, 'any primary content is observed in a source's appendix' does not alter the fact that it is observed by that source. I want to point out that, for due weight and a NPOV, I carefully added that content as a footnote and with attribution (According to the accounts of refugees...), same as you added this content earlier. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

My policy is that I would only use primary sources to provide detail that may be missing in the secondary sources. If a secondary source has said the Maharaja distributed arms for massacres and we had an eye witness that provided details that were essential, then I would use it, but I wouldn't use the primary soruce on its own. The problem here is also that all the parties are heavily involved in the conflict and the incentives for selective presentation of material, for distortion of facts and to propagandise the whole thing are rather too many. We shouldn't touch this source with a barge pole. The Pakistan government had tons of Western reporters milling around during the Indo-Pakistan war. If they wanted their refugeess tales to be recorded, they could have easily thrown them open to neutral reporters. There was no need to publish a secretive, authorless "intelligence report" about it. Regarding my earlier footnote, please note that it was taken from a first person report published in a newspaper, not in a governmental propaganda document. The Indian government has in fact deliberately ignored and suppressed all the information about the victims of Mirpur and Rajouri. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Chattha, pg 183:

There were reports that the Maharaja of the Dogra Hindu state was ‘in person commanding all the forces’ which were ethnically cleansing the Muslims. (‘Elimination of Muslims from Jammu’, Part II, The Times (London) 10 August 1948, p. 5.)

This won't suffice? — Tyler Durden (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, because The Times report was written by a member of the Pakistan government, a fact that Chattha never bothered to check.Your best bet is to use Snedden. Snedden does use information from Kashmir before Accession but at least it is filtered through a reliable scholar. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready to drop this case in good faith, since I realised that the content is taken from a document published by Pakistan Government. But your arguments don't appear genuine to me. On one side you directly use primary content reported decades after the incident has occurred in local newspapers, and on the other hand you're objecting to the content reported in The Times in 1948! The Times report was written by a Pakistani government's agent doesn't change the fact that it is published and reported by The Times. And also, more importantly, the report has been cited widely by multiple scholarly RS including Snedden, with attribution. And you're saying we should brush it away completely without consideration, even to use as a secondary source for adding a mere footnote. — Tyler Durden (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

All right, go ahead and use The Times report. But then I will be adding content from State sources, Mahajan etc. to present their side of the picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha! This has become a kids fight. And no, I don't want the quality of this article to hit the bottom. I intend only in presenting facts and neutral versions, not focus extensively on sides of the picture. So I will drop the case.

But before I leave, I just want to know for one last time: why exactly this footnote should stay in the article, but this one shouldn't? Both are the accounts of survivors and both are supported by newspaper reports. And it is not that even the newspaper reports which published the former accounts were holy writs. They just reproduced what a survivor wrote, as it is, after so many years. That doesn't give any special authenticity to that version. Rationally, is your position framed because of the logic — former is written primarily by the survivor Bal K. Gupta himself independently, while the latter is wholly the work of Pakistani agencies? Just clarify this for my satisfaction. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I added the first footnote because I mentioned Pakistani soldiers in the narrative and it got queried. Without the footnote, it would look like an unfounded allegation.

For the same reason, it is ok to add The Times footnote to document the Maharaja's involvement. But once the Maharaja is put into the frame, his motivations and pressures also need to be explained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh fine. In that case, I don't think it will bring down the quality of the article. If not it improves the content. So I'm adding the footnote from The Times report. You can add and develop content on Hari Singh's side of the picture. — Tyler Durden (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

@Kautilya3: The Mirpur District page has a history section which describes what Mirpur District consisted of in 1947. So I linked it. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I linked it to the History section now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Mirpur and Rajouri

I see that the editors are contesting the death toll estimates of Mirpur and Rajouri.

• As far as Mirpur is concerned, 20,000-dead is quite a good estimate based on all the available evidence. Das Gupta's book is internationally published and internationally reviewed. It is not reasonable to call it an "Indian source". Snedden hasn't looked into Mirpur and Rajouri as diligently as he looked at Jammu. The fact that he couldn't verify it doesn't mean much.
• For Rajouri, the information is scant, and the 30,000-dead estimate is from the Indian military but compiled by academics. It seems to be based on "open mass graves" found in the fields surrounding Rajouri, but insufficient detail has been provided, the demographic data doesn't support it (Rajouri district is currently 34% Hindu) and I haven't seen any survivor reports.

In November-December 1947, Horace Alexander and Richard Symonds were jointly commissioned by India and Pakistan to investigate the treatment of minorities in the conflict areas. Alexander went to the Indian-controlled areas and Symonds to the Azad areas. Unfortunately, while Alexander did his part, Symonds was more interested in finding out about the rebellion than about the plight of minorities. So we have lop-sided information from the two parts of the Jammu province. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: I'm afraid this revert was not warranted. Gupta's credentials are irrelevant insofar as the source of the figure is concerned. On page 97, he cites that number from Balraj Madhok and derives its accuracy from Indian government estimates of retreating refugees. Madhok, btw, was an RSS activist who was directly involved in that conflict on behalf of pro-Maharaja forces, so he would not satisfy WP:THIRDPARTY. Keeping this in mind, the in-text attribution to Indian sources was therefore entirely appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you are second-guessing a reliable source. If we were basing our information on Balraj Madhok, we would definitely attribute it. But we are basing it on Das Gupta. How he gets information and what he finds reliable and what he doesn't, is not our business. Unless you have a reliable source that contradicts the information, it is not proper to question it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not. The Gupta source as you can see clearly references Madhok and Indian government estimates for the 20k number. The figure is not from Gupta. Therefore WP:ATTRIBUTION is necessary. This is a basic requirement and non-debatable. If you have reliable sources showing otherwise, we can take a look. Until then, this is an Indian figure and it has to be clarified. Mar4d (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

What part of WP:ATTRIBUTION leads you to believe that this must be attributed? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the figure is sourced to an RSS activist and the Indian government. Neither fit WP:THIRDPARTY. You are free to use Gupta's text but it is important for the readers to know where the info is coming from - a primary source. The same would be expected for a Pakistani figure. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three secondary sources given in the infobox, which I have now copied to the body as well: Snedden, Das Gupta and Khalid Hasan. Snedden and Das Gupta both give the 20,000 figure and base it on Balraj Madhok. Hasan balances Yusuf Saraf and a survivor's account (Bal K. Gupta). I think that is enough corroboration. Madhok's information is also presumably based on survivors' reports, because he was never in Mirpur himself.

The basic disagreements are:

• Saraf says there were 20,000 people in Mirpur, and the survivors say 25,000.
• Saraf knows that only a small number escaped with the State Forces. The survivors say 2,500. Madhok gives the figure of 2,000.
• Saraf doesn't say how many people survived from the Alibeg camp. The survivors say 1,600. These came via the Red Cross. So it is a public figure.

So all said and done, 20,000 dead is a reasonable estimate. The disagreements are minor. All parties know that prisoners were killed in the Alibeg camp. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Unfortunately the Hasan article is inaccessible. Bhagotra too isn't WP:THIRDPARTY regarding the Mirpur violence. As far as Snedden is concerned, he said the figure came from (quote) an "unverifiable source". So that brings us to square one; Gupta quotes a figure, and that figure is from Madhok. For objectivity's sake, attribution to the Indian source is the correct thing to do, and what Misplaced Pages policy asks. You haven't yet explained your objection. Mar4d (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I was the one who removed the attribution, this is my view on it. I was aware that the figure was taken from an RSS activist Balraj Madhok. But in the citation, Gupta writes: This could be true because the Indian Government itself admits that only 3,600 refugees could come out with the retreating Dogra forces. (emphasis mine) To me, that's Gupta giving his stamp of approval to the figure, balancing all the information he has. And Gupta is a third-party source. Calling him an Indian source is inappropriate, as pointed above. So I think it should remain as a neutral figure. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Carnall, Geoffrey (2010), Gandhi's Interpreter: A Life of Horace Alexander: A Life of Horace Alexander, Edinburgh University Press, p. 216, ISBN 978-0-7486-4185-7

• Stub-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• Stub-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• Stub-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• High-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Stub-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• India articles needing reassessment
• WikiProject India articles