Talk:Kashmiris - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dilpa kaur (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 14 January 2019 (→Dogra regime). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:22, 14 January 2019 by Dilpa kaur (talk | contribs) (→Dogra regime)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmiris article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: Jammu and Kashmir Mid‑importance

	India portal 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
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 May 2012.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Architects' Nagas

This is from Fergusson, James (1868), Tree and serpent Worship, or illustrations of mythology and art in India, Allen, pp. 46–47

It is not, however, only in the valley that our Chinese traveller (Xuanzang) repeats the Hindu legends about serpents and their power, but at every stage of his journey from Cabul to Cashmere, he everywhere finds some spot where a dragon king or Naga Raja resided, and played an important part in the legendary history of the land. These legends, as might be expected, were found in the seventh century very much altered from their more primitive forms, but they are interesting, in the first place, as showing how essentially the north-west corner of India was at one time the seat of Serpent Worship, and also, in what manner it was eventually—except perhaps in Cashmere—amalgamated with Buddhism. (p.46)

These accounts by native authorities are fully confirmed by such scanty notices as we glean from classical authorities; Onesicritus tells us that two ambassadors sent to the king of Cashmere by Alexander, brought back news that the king of the country cherished two large serpents of fabulous dimensions. Maximinius of Tyre tells us, that when Alexander entered India, Taxilus (King of Taxila) showed him a serpent of enormous size which he nourished with great care and revered as the image of the god whom the Greek writers, from the similitude of his attributes, called Dionysus or Bacchus. (p.47)

The latest authority we have, is that of Abulfazl, who tells us that in the reign Of Akbar (1556—1605) there were in Cashmere 45 places dedicated to the worship of Siva, 64 to Vishou, 3 to Brahma, and 22 to Durga, but there were 700 places in the valley where there were carved images of snakes which the inhabitants worshipped. (p.47)

All this is fully confirmed by the architecture of the valley; with very few exceptions, all the ancient temples of Cashmere seem to have been devoted to Serpent Worship. They stand in square courts which were capable of being flooded and were crossed by light bridges of stone, some of which still remain. Even at the present day some of these temples are unapproachable without wading, in consequence of the water which surrounds them, and all might be rendered so by a slight repair to their waterworks. There are, of course, no images in the sanctuaries which long prevented antiquaries from perceiving the form of faith to which they were dedicated. But where the deity is a living god and mortal, when he and his worshippers pay the debt of nature, they leave no material trace to recall the memory of their past existence. (p.47)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Hi User:Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your desire to improve the article on Kashmiris. I noticed that you restored a source published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing", whose reliability was questioned at WP:RSN. I replaced information cited to that reference with a more reliable one. Would you mind explaining why you wish to retain the former? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam 06:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: apologies for the messy editing. This issue has been discussesd before extensively; see Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2. I wrote a propsal, which also treated the Nagas and Pisachas, placing them in context. The sentence you added,

Archaeological findings postulate that the earliest inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley were the Nagas and Pisachas.

References

S. L. Shali (2001). Settlement Pattern in Relation to Climatic Changes in Kashmir. Om Publications. p. 49. ISBN 9788186867525. By the minute study of the description duly supported by the archaeological findings, it is now conceived that the other tribe, i.e. Pishachas inhabited the valley soon after the desiccation of the lake water. Nagas were brought into the valley to fight the contemptuous Pishachas who had occupied a sizeable portion of the valley over the mountains.

seems to be too simple in that respect. Your source also says that the accpounts about Nagas and Pischachas are largely legendary; if you quote Shali, you'll have to quote that part too. I'd still prefer my extended proposal, but alas, any serious change to the Origins-sections seems to be impossible... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I actually agree with your edit attributing the statement with respect to Nagas and Pisachas. My main contention was your restoration of content sourced to a single book by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing". What are your thoughts on that? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular thoughts on CSP. Most sources on this tpic are questionable, so the best approach seems to be to balance all of them, with attribution and proper quotes. Otherwise, they'll be merely used for pov-pushing. But the status-quo on this section makes it impossible to do this... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In my edit, you will have noted that I removed the content sourced to "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" per this discussion. The original revision that I supplanted it with is buttressed by ABC-CLIO, an academic press; there are scholarly sources on this topic available and we should use them, I think. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam 08:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archives also show that there has been no agreed version for the section since it has been always disputed. I also agree that everything is disputed here and some of the mentioned hypothesis (Jewish and Middle Eastern origins) are completely rejected by every single scholar. You had removed the entire section for this very same reason. I would support blanking that section entirely as alternative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to get rid of the #Origins section. It is all mythology, either old mythology or new mythology.

Personally, I find Parpola's strong two-wave model of Indo-Aryan migrations as the most satisfying model in explaining all the observed facts. According to it, a first group of Indo-Aryans migrated to the subcontinent as early as 2000 BCE, probably coming through the Hindu Kush mountains, and a second wave of Rigvedic Indo-Aryans came around 1500 BCE via Arachosia. The second wave people probably called the first wave people by names such as "Nagas" and "Pishachas" due to their distinctive customs. But over time, these distinctions disappeared. I don't think the history of Kashmir would have been much different from that of the neighbouring Gandhara. The Buddhist sources club the two together as Gandhara–Kashmira. No special "Origins" need to be proposed for the Kashmiris. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Who were those first Indo-Aryans? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the section as the current version is largely sourced to a reference that fails WP:RS. Thanks, Anupam 06:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Dogra regime

Dilpa kaur, I am not sure why you needed to move Ian Talbot to the opening, as you say here. The Talbot and Singh book that you cite is on the Partition of India, and neither author is a specialist in Kashmir history. Moreover, Chitralekha Zutshi, who does specialise in Kashmir history, has much to say about these matters in her Chapter 2. For instance, note:

In the case of the Kashmir Valley, the office holders were drawn from the ranks of the Hindu clerical caste of Kashmiri Pandits, and a few prominent Kashmiri Muslim Sayyid and Pir families.

It is important to differentiate between the ranks of the bureaucracy, and the Pandit community in general, since the greatest beneficiaries of the system were the wazir-wazarats and the tehsildars. The lower ranks of the bureaucracy, including the patwaris, kardars and shakdars, most likely did not benefit as much from the system as British representations would have one believe. It is important to differentiate between the ranks of the bureaucracy, and the Pandit community in general, since the greatest beneficiaries of the system were the wazir-wazarats and the tehsildars. The lower ranks of the bureaucracy, including the patwaris, kardars and shakdars, most likely did not benefit as much from the system as British representations would have one believe.

The simplistic picture of Muslim masses being oppressed by Hindu elites drawn by the British commentators is a mirror image of the Hindu masses oppressed by Muslim elites that they drew in the rest of India. These were "familiar colonial tropes" as Barbara Metcalf has pointed out elsewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Zutshi, Chitralekha (2004), Languages of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, ISBN 978-1-85065-700-2
Metcalf, Barbara D., ed. (2009), Islam in South Asia in Practice, Princeton University Press, ISBN 1400831385

The history of that text on this article goes back to NadirAli's referral to Fowler&fowler's explanation to you. Perhaps if @Fowler&fowler: has more time he can join us to re-explain to you the importance of this point, and all the other stuff about scholarly surveys etc. The Hindu elite's treatment of Kashmiri Muslims and that treatment's centrality to the Dogra Hindu state is not even a matter of scholarly dispute. As Fowler&fowler has pointed, there is a consensus on it. I am not allowed to debate this as if on a forum. Dilpa kaur (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dilpa kaur: I am afraid you haven't addressed any of the points I have raised. So let me repeat them:

The Talbot and Singh book that you cite is on the Partition of India, and neither author is a specialist in Kashmir history.
Chitralekha Zutshi, who does specialise in Kashmir history, has much to say about these matters in her Chapter 2.
These were "familiar colonial tropes" as Barbara Metcalf has pointed out elsewhere.

How do you respond to these points? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Read the blurb: "this book explores...the ongoing conflict over contested sites such as Jammu and Kashmir." Refer also to the introduction, pp. 5-6. Our Kashmir expert Fowler&fowler has used Talbot & Singh's survey to write the plain fact of the Hindu elite exploiting Kashmiri Muslim peasants. These scholarly surveys show the scholarly consensus. This page will follow that consensus and the Kashmir article.
Let us see what Mridu Rai author of the award winning Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects has to say.

In fact such incontestable control over the Hindu religious domain allowed the Dogras to ride roughshod over the interests and rights of the vast majority of their Muslim majority subjects

What Zutshi does is add a bit more nuance to the accepted narrative (i.e. "not all Hindus"). Her work is a continuum, this is not a case of contradiction or dichotomy.

The "colonial tropes" Metcalf refers to is a quote from Sir Henry Elliott about the construction of narratives that Muslims oppressed Hindus. We can't, per WP:SYNTHESIS, extrapolate this to include accepted and factual vice-versa instances of Hindu monarchies exploiting Muslims in the same category. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Mridu Rai (2004). Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-85065-661-6.

Copy-vios?...

@Diannaa: could you take a look at this? It seems to me that this editor does not understand what a copy-vio is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) is well aware that adding lengthy quotes is considered a copyright violation, per WP:COPYQUOTE. This situation is not acceptable for the legal safety of Misplaced Pages.Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit, I see your point in this particular case. Nevertheless, I suggest you discuss such matters with experienced editors before jumping to conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Categories: