Talk:Princely states of Pakistan

WikiProject India

NadirAli reverts saying Is it enough content to add an entire project tag? A mere mention won't do. And what's wrong with the list tag; it is a list after all.

It is not a mere mention. There is an entire section on Junagadh, which is now part of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: alright, I restored it. Next time just explain why.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, if you ever bother to ask. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-comprehensive article

Article currently included the states which Pakistan successfully integrated, it also includes the Junagarh state which had signed the instrumentof accession with Pakistan. There is no article that captures all the attempts and intrigues by Pakistan to integrate other parts. This article should be (a) renamed to the "Integration of Pakistan" (b) as it is the right article to include all of the successful and unsuccessful attempts by Pakistan to integrate parts of British India, including Junagarh, Hydrabad, bulk of J&K, Lakshadweep (days after India sent its force to stake claim, Pakistan navy vessel were seen there which returned after seeing Indian Navy's presence), Siachin, etc. All of these represent the ongoing struggle to complete the unfinished agenda of integrating parts of British India. Princely States of Pakistan form only a subset of this context. Article should also include the integration of Gawdar by Pakistan from Oman. Please state your support or opposition with the rationale. Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to expand the article. We can revisit the issue of the page title when it is warranted.

• There is already a section on Junagadh.
• I agree that a section on Jammu and Kashmir is warranted, and I can work on that.
• We also probably need a section on Balochistan.
• Hyderabad doesn't belong here.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Challenge to Peter Lyon citation

I am completely mystified by your last edit, Kautilya3. What objection do you have to that citation? Moonraker (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to the citation. But your content is not supported by the citation. If you believe otherwise, please provide quotes from the source that support it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I am still puzzled, Kautilya3. Do you have Conflict Between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia to hand, and have you referred to page 97? Moonraker (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do and I have checked it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think you will agree that the only words not covered by the citation are “former member of the Imperial War Cabinet”. If you would like to revert without that passage, I could find a separate citation for them, or we could leave them out, they are of no great importance, as they are in the article linked. Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have no more to add, Kautilya3, I shall make the edit myself. Moonraker (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The content I removed is this:

That conflict was precipitated by the major exception to the destiny of Muslim-majority states: the ruler of Kashmir and Jammu, Hari Singh, himself a Hindu and a former member of the Imperial War Cabinet, kept his state outside both new Dominions until events persuaded him to accede not to Pakistan but to India.

The "conflict" in question is the Kashmir conflict, of which I am well-versed. I believe this sentence has been cut-and-pasted from some POV document. It is not verifiable. It should never have been added and it cannot be reinstated now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say, Kautilya3, I am finding your approach to this matter heavy handed, not least the rather hostile messages left on my talk page. It still seems to me that what Peter Lyon says amounts to the Kashmir conflict being precipitated by *events* (my emphasis) persuading Hari Singh to accede to India, and I wonder whether you disagree? But your opinion is not the issue, it’s a question of what the reliable source says. We should not quote directly from a source, for copyright reasons, but Lyon says this: “In October 1947, Pushtu tribespeople... invaded Kashmir. Worried... the Maharajah asked for armed assistance from India...” Of course, there is a lot more, which you have. How would you feel about this:

”That conflict was precipitated by the major exception to the destiny of Muslim-majority states: the ruler of Kashmir and Jammu, Hari Singh, himself a Hindu, kept his state outside both new Dominions until events, including an invasion by Pushtu tribespeople, persuaded him to accede not to Pakistan but to India.” If you don’t like that, what would you suggest? Moonraker (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Kashmir conflict is a highly contentious subject. You cannot add any WP:OR. Your source says simply:

In October 1947, Pushtun tribespeople from Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province invaded Kashmir.

There is no mention of anything "precipitating" anything. If you are trying to pretend that the Pashtun invasion was not part of the "conflict", that won't fly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, I agree that it is a contentious subject, but the source says far more than that. I think you must have a different edition, as mine says “Pushtu”. We have two choices in writing articles on Wikipedia, we can quote directly, or we can paraphrase. As you say, the word “precipitating” is not there, and it is not essential, but that is what happened, and it is supported by the source. You have not made another suggestion. The accession of some states to Pakistan was hastened by the war of 1947, and in this article we can hardly ignore the issue of Kashmir. Perhaps the answer is simply to state some facts:

”One great exception to the destiny of Muslim-majority states was Kashmir and Jammu. Its ruler, Hari Singh, himself a Hindu, kept his state outside both new Dominions until events, including an invasion by Pushtu tribespeople from Pakistan, persuaded him on or about 26 October 1947 (the date is disputed) to accede to India, which was willing to give him military support.” Moonraker (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, it is all your WP:OR. It is not what happened. My suggestion is to drop the whole thing. Kashmir is not a princely state of Pakistan, and there is no need to say anything about it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree of course that Kashmir is not a princely state of Pakistan, but it is still pivotal to the course of events. It would be very odd to try to exclude any mention of it from this article. On your first point, three questions.

1. Exactly what ”WP:OR” are you trying to suggest?
2. What does “It is not what happened” refer to? It must be something in the passage I suggested, but what?
3. You say you have access to the Lyon book, what in my suggestion do you say it fails to support? Moonraker (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3 and I have access to the book we are talking about. I have found a copy at books.google.co.uk which can be read in England, I don’t know how many other people will be able to read page 97 (and more) of Conflict Between India and Pakistan (2008) here. Moonraker (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not the book, but the content you are writing. In order to make progress, please propose your content, along with quotes from the source which support that content. It doesn't even have to be this source. Whatever source you can find is fine (at least for now). But please provide quotes because I see a lot of distance between what the sources say and what you say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sections on non-princely states?

This is an article about the princely states of Pakistan. The main reason why I began it, several years ago, was that there were so many misunderstandings in the English Wikipedia on the subject at that time. Kautilya3, in a discussion above headed "Non-comprehensive article", you said this, inter alia:

1. "I agree that a section on Jammu and Kashmir is warranted, and I can work on that."
2. "We also probably need a section on Balochistan."
3. "Hyderabad doesn't belong here."

I agree on (3). I do not understand (2). The word "Balochistan" means different areas at different times, but none of them was ever a princely state. The present-day Balochistan includes four of the former states, but also some areas of British India. On (1), Jammu and Kashmir was of course a princely state, but never one of Pakistan. We do need to mention Jammu and Kashmir in the background section, headed for now “Options of the princes”, but it would surely cause confusion to treat a disputed territory as a state of Pakistan, and indeed be very contentious. Moonraker (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said sections are needed, because they were quite elaborate affairs. "Balochistan" means all of present day Balochistan except for the British Balochistan. And a section on Junagadh would also be needed in the same vein. The problem with all these topics is that they are quite contentious, and sources state multiple view points, and so it takes time to put them together. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Amarkot

I have moved this section from the article to here, as Amarkot was not a state. Moonraker (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Main article: Amarkot

In 1947, Amarkot (known today as Umerkot), was a small jagir, with an area of 48.6 km² (18.8 sq mi) and a population of some 12,000. Although it had a Hindu majority, it was surrounded on three sides by the Sind Province of British India, which was to become part of Pakistan on 15 August 1947, and the nearest part of the new Union of India was 400 kilometres (250 mi) away across a desert. Arjun Singh Sodha, Rana of Umerkot, who was himself a Hindu, saw little choice about whether to accede to Pakistan, and indeed had previously joined the Muslim League. In 1946, Nehru had himself visited Amarkot to invite the Rana to join the Congress Party, but he declined, as his state had long been associated with the Muslim rulers of the region. He chose to align himself instead with the Muslim League, contesting the decisive 1946 elections as an All India Muslim League candidate.

Rana Chandra Singh, chieftain of the Hindu Sodha Rajput clan, was one of the founder members of Pakistan Peoples Party and under its banner was elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan from Umarkot seven times between 1977 and 1999, when he founded the Pakistan Hindu Party. He was a minister in the federal government and died in 2009. His son Rana Hamir Singh is also a politician and is called the 26th Rana of Tharparkar, Umarkot and Mithi.

Dympies, with the greatest respect, Amarkot was not “pretty much a state” at the time of the partition of India. It was part of the Thar and Parkar district of the Sind Province of British India. It had no local ruler who had the right to accede to either new dominion, it simply became part of Pakistan as a result of the Indian Independence Act 1947. Moonraker (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

References