Jump to content

Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)

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

Kashmir and Jammu?

[edit]

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

Flags

[edit]
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 Flag of Jammu and Kashmir (1936-1953).svg. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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 [Kunlun] range, north of Shadula [Shahidulla]." (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Today part of section of the article to include Aksai Chin

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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.
1864 map
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)[reply]
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 [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-16069078 [2]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Kautilya3 should come and share scholarly sources here, now.-Haani40 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
1946 National Geographic map of J&K

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)[reply]

@Curious man123: You should provide a diff of the edit war if any.-Haani40 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
Read this and this for information.-Haani40 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
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.[3] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav[reply]
Aksai Chin was undemarcated and was not controlled by this princely state. Even Indian military sources have highlighted that "The British left Aksai Chin area as “undefined” at the time of their transfer of power in 1947. Nehru himself once stated that "it is a matter of argument as to what art of it (Aksai Chin) belongs to us and what part of it belongs to somebody else...""[4]
Your own edit (which was soon reverted) failed to address the concern. Infobox is not for keeping dubious information thus "Aksai Chin" cannot be kept here. Since you pinged Kautilya3, I will ping Cinderella157 to share their views. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157's mediation will be quite welcome. I don't know what to make of your source. It is written by a certain "Dr. S. K. Shah", but with no biography of the author. Vij Books is not a scholarly publisher. And I don't see any citations or evidentiary basis in the book, but I see plenty of typos.

I also see weird statements that I can't make sense of, such as, "The [Simon] Commission accordingly adopted a line roughly along the crest of the Karakoram range, excluding the Aksai Chin area". The official Indian demarcation of the border runs along the "crest of the Karakoram range" and also includes the Aksai Chin area. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that he is referring to the Laktsung range as Karakoram, which was done in a map by Trelawney Saunders in 1873. If that is what means, then his idea of "Aksai Chin" is the Aksai Chin lake basin to the east of that range. But that is not what is understood by Aksai Chin in the present day.

On the other hand, here is Hoffmann, Steven A. (2018) [1990], India and the China Crisis, University of California Press, p. 27, ISBN 978-0-520-06537-6. (300 citations on Google Scholar.) Talking directly about the Jammu and Kashmir territory.

Thus, on the Aksai Chin, the Indian government chose to endorse the Ardagh-Johnson line, partly because it allegedly showed where the jurisdiction of the Kashmir (Dogra) Kingdom traditionally ended. This was the Kashmir government's view, supported by the reports of W.H. Johnson and other explorers. To buttress its claim to the Aksai Chin, the independent Indian government could later produce a regular sequence of official records, stretching over many years," on "such matters as revenue assessment, police jurisdiction, public works projects, census returns, control of trade routes and survey and mapping operations".[43] It also pointed to the findings of British Indian and Kashmir government explorers, travellers, traders, and hunting parties. Such evidence came from Kashmir archives and other documentary sources available to the MEA.

The reference to "Ardagh-Johnson line" should be understood as its eastern part. In the north, the official Indian boundary runs along the Karakoram range. It doesn't go as far as the Ardagh-Johnson line. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Responding to ping] This is an article in a terrible state. It focusses on the annexation by India and is therefore largely a content fork (with much less body) than the 47-48 war article. This article is mainly written in the infobox, which WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE clearly tells us not to do and much of the material within it is both unsourced and not supported by the body of the article. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us that that the infobox is for "key facts" from the article and with few exceptions, should be supported by the article. The exceptions are information that would normally be tabulated - typically numerical data eg chemical numerical data or things like areas etc for an article like this. There is little in this infobox that would fall to this. Little that could not be incorporated into prose and should be incorporated into prose. All information should be sourced. On the specific issue of what the previous princely state is now part of, there is nuance to this since Aksai Chin was essentially a no-man's-land at the time of partition with vague lines on maps that nobody really cared about until the 1962 Sino-Indian border dispute. In a nutshell, there is a lot of nuance to the history of Aksai Chin as it pertains to this article (see Sino-Indian border dispute for details). Information provided by Kautilya3 is confirming the nuance over claims to this area. Such nuance can only be conveyed by prose and an infobox is totally unsuited to such nuance. The same can be said for what preceded and succeeded the princely state as presented in the infobox. J&K was only part of the Siek Empire (not all of it) and there is nuance to how J&K was broken up in consequence of the 47-48 war. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan were not independent entities but adminitered by Pakistan, while Jammu and Kashmir became a state of India. This is not conveyed by the flags used. Consequently, I have deleted information against these two fields and note that the template documentation does not mandate their use. Just because there is a field in a template does not mean that we should or must populate it. This is clearly a case when we shouldn't. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty "common languages"

[edit]

Is there any reason for there being twenty common languages in the infobox? Isn't five enough? PadFoot2008 (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state)&oldid=1252826586"