Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Haani40 (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 2 April 2024 (→Today part of section of the article to include Aksai Chin: Added inverted commas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:44, 2 April 2024 by Haani40 (talk | contribs) (→Today part of section of the article to include Aksai Chin: Added inverted commas)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) 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: Index, 1

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Pakistan Start‑class High‑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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 26, 2011.

Speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on Kashmir and Jammu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. gppande «talk» 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Already Jammu and Kashmir exists. No need of duplicates on Misplaced Pages. --gppande «talk» 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as the Jammu and Kashmir article is about the Indian administered part of the former princely state. While Kashmir and Jammu is about the former princely state - different in geography, area and politics. There really ought to be an article on this (IMO). Just as there are articles on Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Islands. This is not duplication but an encyclopaedic way of doing things

And your assertion that this is nonsense has been rejected by two other editors. Pahari Sahib 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above I will remove the merge tag to Jammu and Kashmir - if you wish to merge the content elsewhere, it would make sense to me merge to History of Jammu and Kashmir. Although I believe that an article on the princely state ought to exist and be expanded - and not merely be a section in the History of Jammu and Kashmir article. Pahari Sahib 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article as standalone is notable. I disagree on any merge proposal. --Isles Cape 11:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In principle, there is a place in Misplaced Pages for a good article about the princely state that existed from 1846 to 1947. However, I don't think the current article is good enough to fill that place. History information about Kashmir / Jammu is already spread across Kashmir, History of Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir articles; adding another one at present is not an improvement, and really is just duplication. In any case, the present article is far less comprehensive than History of Jammu and Kashmir#Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu. The largest section here is the geography section, which should mostly be in Jammu and Kashmir#Geography and climate, since it is not historical: the mountains have not moved since 1947. It's also based on an obsolete gazetteer: the heights of the mountains are incorrect, and the overall tone is Victorian purple prose inappropriate in a modern encyclopedia. The only historical geography would be the state's borders, and anything which has changed significantly in recent decades (e.g. towns or roads which are no longer important; forests cleared for cultivation). jnestorius 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the prose may be a little Edwardian but the text is all in the public domain and prose can always be rewritten. As for the argument that it is just duplication - there will always be some overlap, cf Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, United Kingdom, Great Britain and British Islands.

The geography section is no longer the longest section, it may need some pruning and updating but I think it is useful as it gives an indication of the terrain and contrast of the state as a whole. And finally yes it is an old gazetteer but "obsolete"? - the article is about a defunct state that existed at the time that the gazetteer was written. Would anyone claim that the the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles are obsolete when referring to England in the 11th century? (though these of course would need a bit of translating). Pahari Sahib 12:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge or delete. There are separate articles for even tiny princely states. So, I do not see why a separate article for this one cannot exist. Also, Kashmir is a general article on the region and not restricted to a particular timeframe, compared to that, this article should concentrate on everything that was related to the princely state for the timeframe when it existed, with a possible mention of what was there before the creation of the state and what is there after the princely state ceased to exist.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Kashmir or History of Kashmir

I hadn't seen this page before. The article Kashmir is mostly about the princely state, and what details can't go in there belong to History of Jammu and Kashmir (that was the decision made in the Kashmir article when the name was changed from Kashmir region to Kashmir). There is no reason for a separate article. It will simply create more confusion. Also, the Imperial Gazetteer of India content here is not even minimally paraphrased. Notice, in the Kashmir article it is in quotes. At best this page can be a dab page, but even that is recipe for confusion: imagine a new reader contemplating: Kashmir, History of Jammu and Kashmir, Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu (which, by the way, was also called the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir; in fact the instrument of accession to India by Hari Singh was signed by him with that title.), and Jammu and Kashmir, not to mention Azad Kashmir and lord knows what else. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PS The name of the History of Jammu and Kashmir page could be formally changed to History of Kashmir, instead of leaving it as a redirect. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PPS I should have read the posts above. I agree with jnestorius's post pretty much in its entirety. As for the IGI content, I have already alluded to it above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if the IGI content is in the public domain, worldwide that is. I stare at those volumes every day (see picture in Imperial Gazetteer of India), and my understanding is that it is not, especially not in Britain. The DSAL content at Chicago is not in the public domain. Notice the maps there, they can be viewed only with the zoom tool, but not really copied. I have made the maps (reduced from my copies) available on Misplaced Pages only because under US copyright law they constitute pre-1923 content and are therefore in the public domain. They can't be on Commons. I don't know though how it works for prose. In any case, reproducing verbatim is problematic. For example, even though Gibbons Decline and Fall is very much in the public domain, we can't really reproduce it on Misplaced Pages as regular text in an article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A belated reply but firstly on the copyright issue, colonial era texts are in the public domain for instance things published by former Indian official are. But more importantly for this article (and others like these) the imperial gazetteer of India is definitely out of copyright. Copyright for this would originally have been Crown copyright, but with the independence of Pakistan and India - and the end of the British Government of India, if copyright still existed then it would have effectively passed to these two states (this in itself would be somewhat problematic). But bearing in mind things things enter the public domain after 50 years in Pakistan and 60 years in India the text is definitely in the public domain. The DSAL content can only be viewed with a zoom tool and not copied because they have chosen to restrict it, but there should be nothing to prevent you from scanning your own copies as public domain. Similarly the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is in the public domain, if a website scans images from it you may not be able to copy their image (A bit like If I scanned a page of Beowulf, I could choose to keep this image private and it would be a copyright infringement to reproduce). But if you scan the image itself there is not similar restriction (on something this old).

Now regarding the prose, I agree "reproducing verbatim is problematic" - but I have not reproduced text wholesale, rather sections of text have been copied. Admittedly some rewriting may be in order, but it is not a wholesale copy (which would be another matter), there has been some rewording and links here and there.

Now regarding merging, I disagree, Kashmir is about the overall region now governed by Pakistan, India and China. History of Kashmir is about the overall history from ancient times to modern. I disagree when you say this article will create more confusion, I think more needs to be written on this Princely state. There must be more content to add regarding how the state was governed, how its economy and demography changed over time, what happened during the reign of various rulers. Things that can be written in more depth than on the general pages about this area. Pahari Sahib19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merger: I entirely support what is said above by Pahari Sahib. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with the logic of either Pahari or Zulfikar - just think about it. Some person who doesn't know anything about Kashmir decides to go to wikipedia to find out more - and he finds numerous articles on the same topic. This leads to confusion and sometimes contradiction. Bases on ease of use I support the merger —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As a short reply, the "numerous articles" could indeed be a problem if they were all about the same subject, but the pre-1947 state of Kashmir and Jammu is quite distinct from what came after and is surely notable in its own right. See also the table on the Salute state page, which shows that many such pre-1947 states have separate articles. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) But the Kashmir article is about the region as it existed until 1947. That was the decision made when the name of the page was changed from Kashmir region to Kashmir and follows the precedent in Britannica. There is very little difference between Kashmir, History of Kashmir and Kashmir and Jammu (princely state). Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Complicating this further is the name. A search among scholarly articles published between 1840 and 1947 (which would have referred only to the princely state) produced 13 links for "Kashmir and Jammu"; whereas the search produced 123 links for "Jammu and Kashmir". Even for scholarly articles published between 1840 and 1930 (before there was talk of partition of India and any issue of what a future state might be called), there were 79 links for "Jammu and Kashmir" and 8 links for "Kashmir and Jammu". Finally, for all scholarly publications published between 1947 and 2009, there are none that refer to the "Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu"; however, there are 107 that refer to the "Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir". Even the Imperial Gazetteer, whose page is "Kashmir and Jammu," calls it "Jammu and Kashmir" on other pages. I wonder if "Kashmir and Jammu" might have been chosen because readers might have been more likely to search in "K" for "Kashmir," rather than in "J" for Jammu (since Jammu would have been, and still is, less well known), but I don't really know. The search evidence though is problematic for a page name. Changing it to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) would create more confusion with Jammu and Kashmir. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PPS Finally, as I have already stated, the accession document (to India) is signed "State of Jammu and Kashmir." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fowler&fowler that Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) is a more correct name, and also that the Kashmir article is about the region before 1947. It's about the whole history of Kashmir, which of course can't be fitted onto a single page, and this article focusses on the princely state usually called "Jammu and Kashmir" (or less often "Kashmir and Jammu"), the area of which is not identical to the area covered by Kashmir. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the article to the new title. Pahari Sahib 10:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't properly read Fowler's comments that the move may create more confusion. However whether there is 2 or 22 articles on Kashmir - it will always be an issue that many may find confusing. Pahari Sahib 10:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks, Pahari Sahib. In light of UMZ's comments above, I am willing to give this new name a try and see how things proceed with the different Kashmir or Kashmir-related pages. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad there's agreement. This is indeed a better title. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the attention of editors interested in the Princely State of J&K

I am bringing to your attention some pages related to the princely state that have been the focus of irredentist edits, especially by one editor, user:Hindutashravi. The pages are Hindutash, Sumgal, and Aksai Chin. See in particular, Talk:Aksai Chin for my perspective on these edits. In addition one image file, File:Hindutash_in_Kashmir.jpg, which Hindutashravi (talk · contribs) claims belongs to the Simla Convention of 1913, but which seems completely bogus, needs to be deleted ASAP. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyndale Biscoe School#History

Hi, I have taken the first sentence in the history section from this article. Would an editor from here please check and, if correct, revert this edit by the IP, please? TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Loads of Original Research

This article contains loads Original Research. Several passages are not sourced. Even the sourced passages have part of the content representing OR. This needs a significant clean up.
Why is the title "Kashmir and Jammu" whereas the state was called "Jammu and Kashmir" (as the Instrument of Accession clearly shows)?
What is the source for saying that the princely state has "ceased to exist"?

Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Retitling the page

There have been no responses to my statement above that the princely state was called "Jammu and Kashmir", not "Kashmir and Jammu". Accordingly, I propose to change the page name to "Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)". Are there any objections? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that the British did call it "Kashmir and Jammu". Found an old edit in the history that says this. It is possible that the Maharajas called it "Jammu and Kashmir" and the British the other way around. I will add "Jammu and Kashmir" as a redirect. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

India and SAARC Engagements, Volume 2

HIAS, the book is just a compilation of primary documents stitched together with commentary by "Dr. O.P. Goel" (possibly just a made up name, also spelled as "Om Prakash Goyal", "O.P Goyal" etc, and the purported author of numerous other volumes published by Gyan and sister imprints). The books from the publisher have been discussed often at WP:RSN and other places, and found to often have plagiarized content from wikipedia and other public sources, among other credibility issues. They are not reliable unless you can independently establish the expertise of the author, and/or find independent reviews for the particular volume. I was pinged about the issue at your talkpage by User:Kautilya3, but posting my reply here since you have already deleted that section from your talkpage. Hopefully the additional information will be useful to you in judging the credibility of future sources you use. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ok, Thanks for the Information. HIAS (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate infobox?

The infobox was recently changed from {{Infobox former subdivision}} to {{Infobox former country}} without explanation by @VSK1008:. Given that princely states were part of the British Raj, it would seem the former subdivision infobox should be used. But it could be that the princely states could be considered former countries (not counting the brief period of technical independence of J&K during the 1947 transition to the Indian Union). So - which infobox is better for princely states? Dl2000 (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I used infobox former country because for a brief period of time Jammu & Kashmir was independent. Therefore I changed the infobox. Sorry for any inconveniences caused. VSK1008 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Certain information needs to be added, since the princely states had a degree of autonomy. They had monarchs. Before 1870s/80s there was no British Resident in Jammu & Kashmir, therefore the Princely State had extra autonomy. Princely states can be treated as former country if they did not have a British Resident for a period of time. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSK1008 (talk • contribs)

Since there is no visible labelling as a "country", I regard it mostly as a pragmatic choice. If the {{Infobox former country}} has additional fields that are useful, we can use it. This involves on value judgement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Contentious WP:OR

Government of India conceded the desires of the state's people and the monarchy was abolished

This contentious new WP:OR added yesterday is not supported in the Gupta citation haphazardly added to it after I removed it for being unaccompanied by the required citations. I will ignore the edit summary because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and keep the dispute to this talkpage.

A consultation with the Gupta book cited shows no support for Kautilya3's unnecessary credits for the Indian Government role.

Without consulting New Delhi, Abdullah, as Chairman of the said Committee, addressed the Constituent Assembly on 10 June and stated that the Committee considered the institution of monarchy "a relic of the feudal system" and therefore recommended replacement of it by an elected Head. The Constituent Assembly approved the report and ordered the Drafting Committee to submit proposals for its approval within a month. Earlier, the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir adopted, without any reference to India, a new Kashmir State Flag in the form of a white plough on a red background, with three white vertical stripes running parallel to the staff, thus replacing the old State flag. The reaction in India was quite sharp. Prime Minister Nehru deplored the tone of Abdullah's Ranbhirsinghpura speech but he had no doubt that the Praja Parishad's agitation had a big hand in this retrogade development of Kashmir's politics. Officially, a deputation of the Kashmiri leaders was summoned in Delhi on 12 June which then held a series of discussions with the Government of India in order to resolve the constitutional deadlock...The combined efforts bore results in the form of an agreement reached between the leaders of Kashmir and the Government of India...The Government of Kashmir lost no time in implementing those provisions of the agreement to which they cheerfully subscribed. On 21 August 1952, the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir unanimously adopted a resolution abolishing the monarchy and accepting the principle of an elected Head of State for a five year term.

Kautilya3's text which attributes the abolition of monarchy by the Indian Government to "conceding" the desires of people in the state has no basis in the sources. This contravenes WP:V and more seriously might even be a case of WP:FAKE. And I also say that we refer to the reliable source I attached which like Gupta tell us that Abdullah and the Kashmiri state government (not the Indian Government) abolished the monarchy.

Abdullah also eliminated the hereditary monarchy, which had in any event become inconsequential after October 1947. By 1952 the Dogra monarchy was formally abolished, IJK proclaimed a "republic," and the last king's son, the erstwhile heir-apparent Karan Singh, relegated to a largely ceremonial position styled Sadr-e- Riyasat (Head of State)..

Of course the fact that the monarchy itself was inconsequential even before it was officially abolished raises questions about WP:DUE for this edit too.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you make it a habit of reading edit summaries, especially when they revert your edits:

Undid revision 836066773 by JosephusOfJerusalem (talk); the text summarises Article 370; please take your issues there
Copied citation from Article 370

WP:OSE is completely irrelevant to what is going on here. All I did was to summarise the content that is already on the Article 370 page (of which 1952 Delhi Agreement is a part currently). And, I have copied the citation from there. It is entirely legitimate and, in fact, a recommended practice. I have also advised you to take your issues there. Your continued badgering here is inexplicable.

Note that the Misplaced Pages policy is verifiablity, not sourcing. When a link to another page is given, you are expected to go there for further details.

I will update the citation, which seems to be incomplete. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Das Gupta, Jyoti Bhusan (2012), Jammu and Kashmir, Springer, p. 197-200, ISBN 978-94-011-9231-6
Sumantra Bose (June 2009). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Harvard University Press. pp. 54–. ISBN 978-0-674-02855-5.

Undiscussed page move

Recently this page was moved to the title Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, which I have reverted since the renaming was undiscussed, potentially controversial, and (at a quick glance) the new name didn't match the content of the article. However I have no firm opinion about the right name yet, and only suggest that anyone interested in renaming the article should start a formal discussion about it so that evidence/sources can be properly considered and consensus reached. (Pinging @Arimaboss: who had originally moved the page). Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

All the "kingdoms" under British Paramountcy are referred to as "princely states" in all reliable sources. So, no, the move was not proper. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Colorful art of Shams Khan.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

A part of the events left UNEXPLAINED

Under the subheading 'End of Princely State', the article says that the Princely State passed into India's control after the signing of the Instrument of Accession, but immediately after that, it says that a part of it(Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan)came under Pakistan's control, with no explanation whatsoever of how Pakistan seized control of the regions. Hence, it is quite misleading. If anyone knows of the explanation, please edit the page. Royal trumpet (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Flag and emblem

This flag and emblem is officially abandoned after removing article 370. Ck3141 (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the article on the princely state. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Maharajah of Kashmir and Jammu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) _contribs 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"Maharajah of Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maharajah of Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Maharajah of Kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) _contribs 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir

We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir which are here: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf UNMOGIP map for Kashmir is here https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf

Your query has been answered here. Please sign your posts by using four tilde(s): ~~~~ at the end before "publishing changes" There is no need to make the same post on multiple pages; it is enough to do so on the flagship page, Talk:Kashmir. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Kashmir and Jammu?

This name didn't stick. Google ngram viewer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Flags

Flag of Jammu and Kashmir (1936-1953).svg	Flag of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir (1846-1936).svg

There seems to be a disagreement about which flag should appear in the infobox. For the last few years, the infobox displayed . But a new editor changed it to , which somebody else reverted.

@Awais Ali pahadi: would you like to comment?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The real flag of Jammu Kashmir princely state is that who i set on infobox you can also see it on Jammu Kashmir coat Awais Ali pahadi (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Traditional Claims of Jammu and Kashmir" on the map being inaccurate?

While reading on Jammu and Kashmir I found a source by G. W. Hayward that says that quote: "The Maharajah of Kashmir, it is believed, considered his territory to extend up to the Kilian range, north of Shadula ." (which makes sense since the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir built the fort to extend his territory northward.). However, the map on this page shows the claim not reaching Shahidulla, which lead me to question the source of that border. BonkeySmoke (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The source is CIA. It represents the historical knowledge of the US Government, which is pretty good actually. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Today part of section of the article to include Aksai Chin

I have added a Aksai Chin in the "today part of" in the article and we are having a rebuttal about this by Capitals00. I have added Aksai chin as it considered to be a part of princely state. Although it was undemarcated, Government of China in its map untill 1933 shown as the border between British India and Tibet which is also mentioned in the Aksai Chin page with ref and Official maps published by Government of China. Curious man123 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123: Yes it was "undemarcated" and not controlled by this princely state.

If you are really seeking to rely on maps alone then let me know where is Aksai Chin on this 1864 and 1946 map.

When did this princely state (founded in 1846) annexed Aksai Chin from Tibet or Xinjiang? It never did. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly mention in the kashmir page with citation of the source that how much percent of the region is controlled by which countries. There are differnt claim over the period of time by Chinese Government And just because military post of princely state or british India was not present you are making a point that it was never under control by princely state. By that logic youu are making your point that any land is not under control of other it must been under control of another entity which in this case is Tibet, even that lack any source or evidence. There are pages related to this such as Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) which also have the amply number of citation which says that erstwhile Princely State is now under administration of three countries and also mention the name of the area which are in control of them if want ref for that here it is https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078 https://www.britannica.com/place/Kashmir-region-Indian-subcontinent. So assuming otherwise that aksai chin is not a kashmir dispute is bit contentious. Curious man123 (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about the princely state, not Kashmir dispute. The BBC source is irrelevant here. This Britannica source is not about the princely state. Aksai Chin was not controlled by this princely state. China controls Trans-Karakoram Tract|Shaksgam valley]] today which was under control by this princely state. Nobody is saying that China does not have control of the parts of this princely state. It is your addition of Aksai Chin that is misleading. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the current kashmir region dispute is succeeded over the princely state itself which is mentioned in the source that says

Indian troops took two-thirds of the territory, and Pakistan seized the northern remainder. China occupied eastern parts of the state in the 1950s.

Curious man123 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC is not a scholarly source and they are confusing with China's built up of road in Aksai Chin with entry in Kashmir conflict which is inaccurate. Read this: "China would even implicitly recognize the "imperialist McMahon Line" in the eastern sector while India would accept China's strategically important control of Aksai Chin, which India had never controlled in any case." Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 should come and share scholarly sources here, now.-Haani40 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1946 unofficial maps of India (this one by National Geographic) did show both Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract as part of Jammu and Kashmir. It is not hugely important, but we should be consistent with other pages. So they should be included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123: You should provide a diff of the edit war if any.-Haani40 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you are talking of the removal of Aksai Chin from the, "Today part of" section in the infobox.-Haani40 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Also in this map, even though it was officially undemarcated, green line was informally accepted by Tibet and British accepted Johnson line till 1947. Curious man123 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the green line, called Macartney-MacDonald Line, was offered to Qing China as a border settlement, but Qing China never responded, and no other Chinese government since then. India's official border was defined by India in 1954. It doesn't say anything about the princely state, though we can see that its area was all included in the area of the princely state. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Kautilya3 or anyone else, I tried to fix the url for one of my citations (see this) but could not do so correctly. Please correct it.-Haani40 (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Curious man123: The infobox is not for adding dubious information or selecting between one country's POV. At this stage, I would suggest removal of "Today part of" as whole. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek0831996, Curious man123, and Kautilya3: have told you that Aksai Chin is today a part of China but it was part of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) earlier and Kautilya3 has backed it up with a map. It isn't dubious. We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war.-Haani40 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Read this and this for information.-Haani40 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:BATTLEGROUND. The two maps shown by Kautilya3 just official map of the princely state and a patrolling map. None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin. I have already provided scholarly sources that confirm India never controlled Aksai Chin. Infobox is not for keeping dubious information. You have been already reverted on the main page with these false claims of yours. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary in that revert said, "Reverted good faith edits by Haani40 (talk): Nah, it was disputed long before 1962. Please see the sources in the article." and was meant to say that the dispute started before the war. It doesn't confirm that India never controlled Aksai Chin. Aksai Chin was occupied by China between 1959 and 1962; see this edit.-Haani40 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: