Talk:1947 Jammu massacres/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)

references

54 The Journey to Pakistan: Documentation on Refugees of 1947, pp. 298-9. 55 Interview with Zafar Butt, Sialkot, 16 January 2007. 56 Interview with Khalid Ali Gujar, Sialkot, 16 January 2007. 57 Interview with Kawaja Tahir, Sialkot, 16 January 2007. 58 Interview with Zarar Hussian, Sialkot, 15 January 2007. 59 The Census of India, 1961, Vol. V1, cited in M. H. Kamili (ed.), Jammu and Kashmir: Census of India (Delhi : Manager of Publications, 1967), p.42 and p. 157 and pp. 359-60. 60 ‘Elimination of Muslims from Jammu’, II, The Times (London) 10 August 1948, p. 5"

--- 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

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 Wikipedia. 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/wiki/Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia talk page cannot be used as a forum. But since editors of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. So I'll ignore this rule for you, as I think doing so will help in improving and maintaining Wikipedia, 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)

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)

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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

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? - [1] — 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 [2]) 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) [3] ? -- 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 [4]. 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 Wikipedia 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)

The "could be true" works both ways. And just to be clear, Gupta isn't the source of the figure as you admitted. So his approval (or lack thereof) remains entirely irrelevant. It's simply his job as a writer to conjecture whatever data is available to him, which is evident in the passage quoted. Even Snedden did that, rather discernably. Their quoting of the figure doesn't change it's WP:PRIMARY source origin. Both authors have commented/referenced on the source as you can see; therefore, the in-text attribution isn't anything different. Hope this makes sense. Mar4d (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d, Khalid Hasan's article is reproduced in the Bal K. Gupta's book. I suppose you don't believe it. Here is an internet archive [5]. It used to be here, but somehow it got removed.

As for my "objection", I don't believe that if a reliable source cites an Indian source, then the reliable source itself becomes an "Indian source". That way, we would have to attribute everything sourced to Snedden as "Pakistani source". Both TD and I try to find as many sources as we can and cross-verify them. When there is consensus among them, we don't use attributions. So, what is needed here is to find contradicting information, if you can. Until you do so, this discussion is merely a waste of time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Return of refugees

@Kautilya3: In the 'Population figures' section, can you please tell me why aren't we taking the official Jammu and Kashmir Government's figure of 200,000 to estimate the number of Jammu Muslims killed? :-P

PS: I'm not saying that the people killed are about 100,000. All I'm saying is, I don't know, and I still cannot know. Even if today I don't ask this, tomorrow at some point of time, some reader will certainly raise this question. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, because the J&K Government is not THIRDPARTY and it had incentives to inflate the figures. Secondly, if 200,000 refugees are taken to have returned out of 333,000, then Pakistan would have only 133,000 refugees left and it is easy to find other data that contradicts it (e.g., Snedden). Frankly, I am surprised (and gladdened) to hear that 100,000 refugees returned. 200,000 would be quite a bit harder to believe. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, because the J&K Government is not THIRDPARTY and it had incentives to inflate the figures: Do you mean, incentives from Indian government?

Secondly, if 200,000 refugees are taken to have returned out of 333,000, then Pakistan would have only 133,000 refugees left and it is easy to find other data that contradicts it (e.g., Snedden): Did Snedden/anybody particularly observe that there are more Jammu Muslim refugees in Pakistan after 1951 than 133,000?

Frankly, I am surprised (and gladdened) to hear that 100,000 refugees returned. - Me too. — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya3, This is what Snedden has to say: [6]

Certainly, a large number of Jammu Muslims, around 400,000, also fled to Pakistan or to the newly-formed Azad Kashmir, which had about 150,000 refugees. When these people left their homes in J&K, many thought that they were leaving temporarily and that they would soon return when the situation in and the subcontinent normalised. Few of these refugees ever returned home.

--- Tyler Durden (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, the return of the refugees has been a well-kept secret. I haven't seen anything about it in all the reliable sources I have skimmed through all these years. Saraf's book is gigantic, with a lousy index. It is hard to find information in it. It looks like Snedden didn't spot it.

Saraf also gives the figures for voters in AJK elections, in which the refugees had voting rights. Based on those figures, he estimated about 500,000 refugees present in Pakistan in the 1970s. That number couldn't have grown from a base of 133,000 in 1950. The J&K government would have been prone to inflate its own achievements. There were also incentives of corruption, which apparently became rampant as soon as Sheikh Abdullah took over. Previously the officials might have been stealing from the people, but now they were also stealing from the state.

For the time being, all I can say is that the 'headcount figure' seems reliable. The seeming inconsistency that found earlier is accounted for by the return of refugees. We need to continue looking for better data on the returned refugees. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Thanks for the reply, Tyler Durden (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Justice Yusuf Saraf estimates them (deaths) to be between 20,000 to 30,000. - For this content, you cited page number 133 of Saraf's book, while Evans, in his journal 'A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001', cited page number 841 for the same (citation 110 on p 37). Can you please re-check this? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the page number in the 1979 edition. I will add it to the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I find it hilarious how Tyler Durden has been blocked. Fitting I'd say. Now for these ridiculous claims about Pakistani troops massacring Hindus, there is not one single credible piece of evidence provided in the article which states this. I've looked through the sources, and only 1 person claims this...Das Gupta. Where he found these claims, God only knows. And the claim about rape is nowhere to be found either. So I'm putting citations again on those claims until someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that WP:NPA applies to blocked editors as well. Attempting to disparage editors also won't go down well. And, why are you writing here in an old thread?

What is here is a summary of the main article, 1947 Mirpur massacre. Have you looked at the sources there? Given how poor your source-checking is, as indicated in the section below, you need to be very careful in challenging verification for long-established content. It is highly disruptive to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claims - citations required

• Many Hindus and Sikhs, on and after 25 November 1947 gathered in Mirpur for shelter and protection were killed by the Pakistani troops[citation needed] and tribesmen[citation needed].

Where did "Pakistani troops" come from? None of the sources provided even claim this. Pakistan didn't even have a proper army in November 1947 anyway.

• Mass rape and abduction of women was also reported [citation needed].

There is no proof of this either from the sources.

The only source that claims "Pakistani troops" is Das Gupta, a reknowned pseudohistorian and Indian propagandist. He himself offers no clues as to the source of his information. It seems like he just woke up one day and decided to write an article. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Snedden, p.56:

The Indian White Paper discusses one incident of violence and kidnapping in and around Mirpur on 25 November 1947, with 'Pathans' the perpetrators.[150] A further alleged--and, if true, abysmal--incident of anti-Hindu violence took place in Mirpur. This was the 'liquidation of over twenty thousand non-Muslims on and after 25 November 1947 out of a total twenty five thousand' gathered in Mirpur for shelter and protection.[151] A 'greatly shocked' Sardar Ibrahim painfully confirmed that some Hindus were 'disposed of' in Mirpur in November 1947, although he does nto mention any figures.[152]

Das Gupta, p.97:

Whereas the migration of the Muslims from the Jammu area was quite impressive, the beleaguered non-Muslims in Bhimber, Rajauri, Kotli, Mirpur and Deva Vatala had to face total annihilation in the early stages of occupation by elements coming from Pakistan. In particular, the town of Mirpur saw the liquidation of over twenty thousand non-Muslims on and after 25 November 1947 out of a total of twenty-five thousand, inclusive of refugees, who had taken shelter there from other areas.

Khalid Hasan, narrating the testimony of Bal K. Gupta:

Around November 25, 1947, there were nearly 25,000 Hindus and Sikhs living in Mirpur. During the city's capture, close to 2,500 were killed in the infernos that erupted due to Pakistani artillery fire. Another 2,500 escaped with the retreating Jammu and Kashmir army. The remaining 20,000 were marched in procession towards Alibeg. Along the way, Pakistani troops and Pathans killed about 10,000 of the captured Hindu and Sikh men and kidnapped over 5,000 women. The 5,000 Hindus and Sikhs who survived the 20-mile trek to Alibeg were imprisoned. In March 1948, the Red Cross rescued 1,600 of the survivors from Alibeg. Between 1948 and 1954, around 1,000 abducted Hindu and Sikh women were recovered from Pakistan and Azad Kashmir.

If you want more detail about the Pakistani troops, here it comes:

One evil looking Pakistani announced that our days of living were over. They would kill all of us Kafir Hindus (infidels) with a butcher's knife. But he yelled that number 18th and 19th have to do a simple task of lifting the dead bodies and throwing them in the canal....

On December 20, 1947 evening, four days after the above episode, Pakistani soldiers grabbed 13 young men and took them to the canal. We were again made to remove our clothes and lie down... The Pakistani butcher went reciting Kalma and slaughtering Hindu boys and we kept on throwing the dead bodies in the canal. After both of us had thrown the body of 11th person in the canal, we laid down on the ground for our turn. Time was same as four days ago but the sky was clear and I closed my eyes for my turn.

Suddenly, we heard a commanding voice asking why soldiers were killing the boys. Another introduced him as Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim, President of Azad Kashmir Government. Then, I opened my eyes and saw that the butcher got up and saluted the Sardar and bowed his head in front of him. The butcher replied that he was a soldier of Pakistan, follower of its president Mohammed Ali Jinnah and was following the orders of his superiors.

The boy who narrates this story was the son of a lawyer in the Mirpur district court, whom Sardar Ibrahim regarded as a personal friend. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

• We should not be using Bal K. Gupta because it is a self-published source. Also, since it would appear that Snedden's book amounts to a revisionist view of what went on, I think we need to highlight that in some way. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We are not usingn Bal K. Gupta. We are using previously published articles that he included in appendices. I can also tell you that we cross-compared the surviver accounts with Sardar Ibrahim, and they are consistent with each other. Ibrahim says that he ordered that nobody should be killed in the Alibeg camp, but they continued to be killed. So the guards at the camp were not following his orders. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Previously published by whom? Where? Why not cite them directly? And we're not qualified to "cross-compare" - that is for secondary sources to do, I think. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter but the sourcing seems suspect, at least per our policies. Sneddon's book, certainly, caused a bit of a ruckus. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As the citation above says "first published in The Tawi Deepika". See WP:SAYWHERE. I don't know of any ruckus about the Snedden's book. I have been using almost ever since it got published. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The only non-biased source here is Snedden, and he doesn't say anything about any Pakistani troops. Please explain to me which "army" Pakistan had in 1947? Das Gupta and that other guy are not credible or neutral sources. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether you think some source is "credible or neutral". What matters is whether it is reliable. By Wikipedia policy, it is. You haven't given any evidence that it is not reliable. And, who is "the other guy"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that 1947 Mirpur Massacre be merged into 1947 Jammu massacres. There's not point of having two articles. Or remove the Mirpur massacres from the Jammu massacres. One or the other. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is nothing unusual about a topic being summarised in a parent article, and given more detail in a separate article. The nom fails to state any reasons why 1947 Mirpur massacre should not be an independent article.

This page covers the massacres that occurred throughout the Jammu province. However, the majority of violence that occurred in the princely-ruled parts was communal violence, even though it was apparently aided and abetted by the princely regime. But the violence in the rebel areas was characteristically different. Almost the entire population of religious minorities was massacred after the rebels took control. In Mirpur, 20,000 out of 25,000 minorities were killed. That is a different topic, different setting, and different actors. I see no reason to merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a summary this is several thousand words which are enough for an independent article itself and has obvious agendas of Hindus who wish to muddy the waters about the Jammu massacre. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:7871:7BC2:3DB8:7A1C (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Flooding of article with an unrelated event

This article has had more information relating to a event in Mirpur and other places than the event the article is supposed to be about considering those events have seperate pages and links to them this is undue and is obviously an attempt by people with a certain agenda to try and dilute the Jammu genocide by comparing to an unrelated event elsewhere. The murpir article itself does not even mention the much larger genocide which occurred BEFORE the mirpur event. We need editors who do not have bias or a certain agenda to assess this article and any additions of a unrelated issue must be discussed first 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:7871:7BC2:3DB8:7A1C (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)sock of a community banned user.

Hello @2A02:C7D:151D:D100:7871:7BC2:3DB8:7A1C:! I noticed that you have left a note on my talk page. Although I do agree with you that unrelated events should be removed, the second last sentence of the general information should be kept, as it appears to be caused by this or is part of same conflict as this. While I do apologise in being too stern, I would also like to say that when you do make a comment such as above in the talk page, can you please discuss it before removing? This allows for a general consensus to be reached, and bold edits such as the ones you have done are flagged as highly likely to be vandalism/bad faith edits on the wikipedia filter. Thanks! Dark-World25 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jammu, Mirpur and Rajouri

During the last few days, a whole bunch of IPs and at least one registered editor, have started raising issues about Mirpur and Rajouri information covered here. They have also made WP:POINTy edits at Jammu, Mirpur and 1947 Mirpur massacre. These edits and the consequent edit-warring do not achieve anything. Please discuss the issues here.

"Jammu" In this article refers to the Jammu province (of the princely state), of which Mirpur and Rajouri were very much a part. But Tyler Durden (who wrote most of the content here) was also aware that the majority of the violence happened in the Jammu and Kathua districts, and that is where most of the content is focused. Mirpur and Rajouri are mentioned in brief summaries.

The reverse comparison is not valid. Mirpur and Rajouri were not "provinces". The discussion of those events covers the respective cities and their surrounding areas. There is no reason for those articles to cover the Jammu events, unless it is established that the two were linked. Mirpur and Rajouri were rather linked to the 1947 Poonch Rebellion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Poor quality edits

JosephusOfJerusalem, this is a difficult and painful subject. I request you not to make POV edits and fight silly games. Changing "scholar" to "historian" and adding Alex von Tunzelmann[7], labelling her as "historians", is precisely that kind of a game.

• Illyas Chattha is a greenhorn that barely got his PhD. It is adequate to describe him as a "scholar". We can reserve labels like "historian" for Ian Copland and Christopher Snedden who have done much more fact-checking than Chattha sees the need for. Here is an example of his statements:

As the shadow of Partition fell over J&K, over one million Muslims were uprooted and an estimated 250,000-300,000 were massacred in Jammu province alone between September and November 1947.[13: The Times, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Khurshid claims that "as many as 200,000 Jammu Muslims lost their lives in 1947 and most of them died around the first week of November" in 1947. Sorayya Khurshid, "My Jammu Memories", in Rehmatullah Rad and Khalid Hasan, eds, Memory Lane to Jammu]

Take a deep breath! One million Muslims! From a little province like Jammu, whose total population in 1947 was just about one million. The total Muslims over there in 1947 was no more than half a million. And, a good majority of them are still there, as the #Population figures section shows.

• Tunzelmann does not even have a PhD. She is more of a popular book writer, even film-writer, that specialises in historical topics. Everybody that writes anything historical gets to be called a "historian" in popular parlance. Our meaning of "historian" is much more specialised, as defined in WP:HSC.

First of all, I would like to ask why you find the need to cite such poor-quality sources when scholars like Copland and Snedden have been cited here.

Secondly, why do you make claims like "Historians explain that India had supplied the Dogra troops with weapons" when even the poor-quality source you have added only says "perhaps because it had secretly been providing arms to the Dogra side". Tunzelmann might believe that she has access to "secrets" that none of us aware of, but there is enough documentation available to disprove such theories. And, even if India did supply weapons, what then? How else is the State supposed to get weapons? Does Tunzelman not know that the State was just about face a massive invasion from Pakistan? What does all this have to do with the subject of this article?

You write "The proportion of Muslims in the Jammu city altogether halved by the middle of September due to killings and displacement". The phrase "due to killings and displacement" is not in the source. That is your WP:OR. In fact the page you have cited also talks about "anticipatory exodus". And, Chattha's source for this statement is Pakistan Times, which had been in existence for less than a year by September 1947. How much reliance can one place on such a newspaper in such contentious and troubled times? Christopher Snedden, on the the hand, uses Civil & Military Gazette, a much more established newspaper.

The page has been perfectly well-balanced and high quality before your contributions. I don't see much value that you are adding. I suggest that you first read the article and its sources thoroughly before attempting to make any modifications. As I said this is a difficult subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If would be quite a WP:WEASEL to describe someone with post-doc in history as just a scholar. Tunzelman is also a known historian with a qualification in history, unless of course you have a source which says otherwise. If you don't agree I can take it to WP:RSN.

Of course if you have sources which contradict Tunzelman and Chattha on Indian (or Patiala, by then a part of India) supplies and the Indian denial of this holocaust which Tunzelman says followed from their supplies of weapon to the Dogra state you may have an argument. The rest is WP:POV argumentation.

The WP:OR argument is invalid because Chattha's next sentence explicitly mentions ″killings and dispersal″. There is no need for hairsplitting here. The age of newspapers reporting current events is irrelevant in so far as their reliability is concerned. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A lot of new researches and modifications take place especially when old incidents are concerned, hence the age of newspaper is relevant. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitals00 (talk • contribs)

Josephus, "scholar" is high qualification for Wikipedia. My assessment is that Chattha is a scholar, though yet inexperienced. For example, in a later article he analysis the partisan coverage of the newspapers, in the light of which his overreliance on Pakistan Times and Nawa-i-Waqt is questionable.

As for Tunzelman, I would classify her as a 'writer', not a scholar. Her biography says that she 'read history', which basically means that she got a degree in history. She does not mention whether it was a BA or MA. MPS1992, can you take a look?

The paragraph you are using from Chattha is problematic. The first citation is for mid-September. The second is for 20 November and the third is for 29 October. The events have been listed in jumbled order. Since the situation in J&K was very fluid and dynamic at this time, one month is a long time. So the paragraph is combining apples and oranges, and mixing them all up.

The idea that the Jammu city's Muslim population was halved by mid-September is contradicted by for example Yusuf Saraf:

Mohammad Yosuf Saraf, former chief justice of the PAAJK High Court, says that by 10 October 1947, 2,000 Muslims had migrated to Sialkot.[12: Hasan & Rad, Memory Lane to Jammu, p.161]

Until 4 October, both the Army chief and the Police chief of the State were British officers. It is highly unlikely that any large-scale killings took place during their tenure. Jammu city's Superintendent of Police was Muslim too, until he was dismissed around 20 October. All sources agree that major violence occurred between 20 October and 10 November. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

References

On the sources

Thank you for the ping. I had better not get too involved here. However.

As far as I can see on a quick look, Chattha is a post-doc student according to the website linked above. This is a different thing from has a post-doc [qualification] which one of you appeared to suggest above. Their being a post-doc student suggests they already have a PhD in history. This makes the person reasonably well-qualified in the general field of history, although you could still challenge -- at WP:RSN -- whether a particular publication of theirs constitutes reliable sourcing for a particular statement, in a particular field.

The Wikipedia article about Tunzelman suggests that they received an undergraduate history degree from Oxford University. This will be listed as an MA not a BA (assuming they bothered to take up the MA) but it is still an undergraduate degree. It gives them no particular scholarly status other than being slightly more of an authority than someone without such a degree. The extent to which a statement in one of such a person's works is a reliable source for a particular fact, depends in large part on the nature of the publisher, and the nature of the work. Such reliability could be established, or challenged, at WP:RSN.

You could consider as a parallel example Max Hastings, who never completed his undergraduate history degree at Oxford, made his career as a journalist, but has written a great many [popular] historical books, has won a great many prizes for them, and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

In general I much prefer to avoid Wikipedia articles labelling writers as anything at all. If there is an article about Tunzelman on Wikipedia, then the wording "Alex von Tunzelmann states that..." is entirely adequate -- we do not need writer, scholar or historian. We should not be attempting to laud or denigrate a particular source by insisting on mentioning what we believe their status is. Avoiding mentioning status also assists by avoiding the necessity for this sort of argument.

I also think that for the most part, it is best to avoid analyzing the credibility or reliability of a particular writer by picking apart particular things they have written, ourselves. If a writer has been condemned as unreliable, because of something they wrote, by other reliable sources, that is far more relevant. It's not for us as Wikipedians to do that.

The text "Historians explain that India had supplied..." also has some issues with the MOS because of WP:CLAIM. I do not have the expertise or the background to analyze it beyond that.

both the Army chief and the Police chief of the State were British officers. It is highly unlikely that any large-scale killings took place during their tenure -- I do not really agree that this necessarily follows. Britisher authorities were often unable to exert full control in this period. MPS1992 (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your timely intervention MPS1992. That was very helpful indeed. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input MPS1992. I agree that the mere presence of British officers does not imply that things were under control. But if they were out of control, we would have had some documentation about them. Both the officers were extensively questioned by the British High Commissions in India and Pakistan after they left office and their reports are available in the British archives for scholars to examine. I can dig up the sources if necessary, but the High Commissions' assessment was that nothing radical had happened during their tenure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is one source describing the situation till the end of September 1947:

That at least till the end of September 1947, while communal disturbances in the subcontinent were causing considerable disquiet to both the people and the administration of Kashmir, there was next to no animosity between Hindus and Muslims, and no communal violence in the state, barring a few sporadic incidents in the Jammu region;

The assessment is based on the fortnightly reports of the British Resident in Kashmir and the final report of Major-General Scott, the state's army chief that stepped down on 29 September 1947. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am parking here a couple more reports from British officers to guard against potential POV pushing.

At about the same time that Mahajan was meeting Patel and Nehru in Delhi (between the 19 and 21 September), Scott was deciding to leave the Kashmir government's service on the grounds that 'the Maharaja had more or less made up his mind to accede to India'. As Scott reported from Karachi, the Maharaja's chief of police, a Mr. Powell, also resigned at the same time, citing the same reason.

POV pushers say that Scott and Powell were "fired" by the Maharaja.

Maj-Gen Scott, before leaving, wrote his final report on 22 September, which has been cited in many sources. Here is some of what it says:

On the Southern border of the State the Muslims have massacred, driven out and looted the Sikhs and Hindus. The former having thus acquired a taste for massacre and loot are likely to be ready for fresh adventures. Even more dangerous than these are the many thousands of Muslim refugees that have passed into the districts of Jhelum, Gujrat and Sialkot from the East. These have lost much and no doubt are prepared to recoup themselves at the expense of any one they are in a position to attack. Revenge and fanaticism must be equally strong motives.

There are few indications that the Pakistan authorities are making efforts to restrain their people. In fact, the contrary may be said to be true. There can be little doubt that the Pakistan police and troops are not reliable.[56]

By the "Southern border of the State", I suppose he means the borders of the Jammu (including Samba) and Kathua districts. I have looked hard to see whether he mentions any mischief by Hindus and Sikhs, and couldn't find any.

Finally, a report from a Major Cranston, a former political officer turned into a diplomat (much like C.B. Duke):

Major Cranston, a former member of the political service, who had remained behind on the staff of the British High Commission, visited Srinagar from 10-14 October, to make preliminary arrangements should it become necessary to evacuate Britons living in Kashmir, and reported on his return that the Mehtar of Chitral and the Nawab of Dir had formally warned the Maharaja that if he acceded to the Indian Union they would invade his state. Quoting what sounded very much like Muslim Conference sources, Cranston also reported that 25,000 tribesmen from Hazara, 15,000 from Chitral and 10,000 from Hunza were poised to invade Kashmir if the Maharaja acceded to India.

So, by 10-14 October, the British High Commission in India knew that Kashmir was going to get invaded and they needed to evacuate the British civilians. Does anybody think C.B. Duke wouldn't have known? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

Kautilya3 I suggest you find some reliable sources which explicitly contradict Chattha's text about the proportion of Muslims dropping by the middle of September. The chief justice Saraf's figures, which he doesn't explain how he got, are only his figures for the number of refugees (presuming they were counted). I see he presents the lower limits of the killings too. There are various estimates in the WP:RS about number of killings and displacements and his tend to be on the lower side. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Josephus, it may or may not be possible to produce sources for or against every claim made in every source. We also have to go by the general quality of the source and how reliable are the claims.

Chattha's credibility is suspect because he unquestioningly accepts the Times figure for the number killed, which other scholars have dismissed as highly exaggerated. These scholars include Ian Copland, who has written extensively on partition violence, Christopher Snedden, who has done an in-depth study of the Jammu violence, and Yusuf Saraf, who has no reason to under-report figures, himself being an Azad Kashmiri nationalist and a former Chief Justice (and therefore knows how to evaluate claims and facts). The cards are heavily decked against Chattha here.

Second, Chattha's claims are based on Pakistan Times and Nawa-i-Waqt, which he has himself accepted as partisan sources, and he fails to use better quality newspapers such as Civil & Military Gazette.

Under the circumstances, your demand that I should produce a source that "explicitly contradicts Chattha's text" is unreasonable. It is clearly an implausible claim based on Yusuf Saraf's information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I should also point out that Chattha seems oblivious of all the other analyses that preceded his. Publishing his paper in 2011, he should be citing and analysing his differences with Copland (2005), Snedden (2001) and Saraf (1979). At the least, this is dubious scholarship. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

End of September

The article currently has the sentence:

By the end of September, Muslims were surrounded in Jammu city and in the villages, and were told by civil and military officials to leave to Pakistan. Starting from the first week of October, Muslim population was attacked in Jammu plains and the surrounding hills.

References

I find this dubious. The source that Luv Puri quotes for this information says:

From the end of September until the atrocities were checked by Indian control in November, Muslims were rounded up in the villages and in Jammu City itself and told by civil and military officials to depart to Pakistan.

It is clear that "end of September" is only mentioned as a terminus a quo for a general phenomenon. Nothing is being said about what happened at the "end of September". As I mentioned above, the State's police and army were headed by British officers till 3 October. According to Ian Talbot, the violence that was reported on 14 October was the beginning of the Jammu violence. So, I am removing this dubious sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

The Times report

This sentence "A report by a special correspondent of The Times, published on 10 August 1948, stated that a total of 237,000 Muslims were either killed or migrated to Pakistan" is a victim of endless re-citations (with the Indian lakh comma). Anyone with access to Times Digital Archive can see that no such item was published that day. The actual source of the quote is "Kashmir: A Pakistani View. Denial of a People's Free Choice. By Nasim Ahmed, London Correspondent of Dawn (Pakistan). The Times (London, England), Thursday, Nov 08, 1962; pg. 13; Issue 55543. (1311 words)" His words in this article are "This incredibly inhuman action on the part of the Maharaja was described in a dispatch sent at that time by The Times correspondent in that area. He reported that 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border, by the forces of the Dogra state, headed by the Maharaja in person." So there you have it. A 1962 published article in The Times that cites the same newspaper that cannot be found in its own archives. I have not bothered to edit the main article here as I have no interest in the politics of this region. Ash (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The quotation is genuine, but the date cited for The Times report is wrong. This has been analysed by scholars Christopher Snedden etc. The report was authored by a British official in the employ of Pakistan. It is endlessly re-quoted by parties that wish to derive political mileage out of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are quotations from Snedden's book that discuss the topic:

On 10 August 1948, an Informed Special Correspondent Of The Times provided an exact figure of 237,000 for the number of Muslims who disappeared from Jammu.[143] Under the subtitle 'Elimination of Muslims from Jammu' , he provided detailed information about the Muslim population of eastern Jammu, which for him comprised the districts of Jammu, Udhampur and Kathua and the eastern part of Reasi district. Out of a total population of 411,000 Muslims, the Special Correspondent believed that '237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated—unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border—by all the forces of the Dogra State, headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs. This happened in October 1947, five days before the first Pathan invasion and nine days before the Maharaja's accession to India'.... This report had some veracity given the writer's background knowledge of J&K. Since the figure of '237,000' Muslims being 'exterminated' first appeared in The Times, numerous official Pakistan documents and pro-Pakistan writers have cited this report as evidence of a Muslim 'massacre'. Their citations usually include an incorrect report date of 10 October 1948; this was a Sunday, and the only day of the week on which The Times was not published. (p.55)

[143] This paragraph is based on, with all quotations taken from, The Times, 10 August 1948. This was the Special Correspondent's second report on "The Fate Of Kashmir'. The first, subtitled 'An India-Pakistan Batteground', appeared on 9 August 1948. (p.330)

All the information stated by the Special Correspondent can be corroborated from other sources. The only distortion, if such it was, was in the suggestion that almost all of the 237,000 Muslims that disappeared from there areas were killed. Later estimates show that perhaps about 20,000 were killed. The rest went to Pakistan. Of those that went to Pakistan, about 100,000 returned after the hostilities subsided. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

In the Jammu Massacre Statistics in the top right box -- it is written that there are 50 000 - 100 000 estimated Muslim deaths, which is correct. However, according to the article, the figure for Sikh/Hindu deaths should be over 50 000 (it is listed as 20 000 in the article). Over 20 000 were killed in the Mirpur Massacre, and around 30 000 in the Rajauri Massacre. Bartybernie (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The article's sources don't verify the figures given. Miniapolis 22:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not give figures for the people killed in Rajouri. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

biased page

this page is a biased page. why there is so much more information about violence on muslims and very less information about violence on hindus and sikhs? onesidedly "killings were carried out by extremist Hindus and Sikhs" is there but no "killings done by extremists muslims" is there. the writers of this page are anti hindu bigots. please somebody look into this prejudiced page and delete it from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffron Army (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Saffron if you bothered to look at the title of the page this is about Jammu massacres committed by non other than other saffron extremists you are free to create other pages related to unrelated events in mirpur or rojai. This is another example of people trying to push their religous agenda on an article. 2A02:C7D:151D:D100:7871:7BC2:3DB8:7A1C (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The page is highly biased against Hindus and Sikhs, as the first line of the article unfairly mentions only muslim massacre by Hindus and Sikhs, while only the last line of the paragraph mentions that Hindus and Sikhs were also massacred.. HOW IS THIS FAIR or UNBIASED ? The massive killings and rapes of Hindus and Sikhs by "Moslem Tribal Invader" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41662588) in 1947 is poorly covered in this article, which also happened in 1947 and both in Jammu and Kashmir, so is relevant part of this article. Please try to correct this bias against Hindus & Sikhs in the opening statement of this page. Rajiv.dhy (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC) RajDhy

You know the drill. Find reliable sources that do anything differently from what we do, and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with above, this is very biased against Hindus and Sikhs. "The killings were carried out by extremist Hindus and Sikhs" is an inaccurate statement as it also needs to be complimented with Muslims as well, as they also contributed to the massacre. Also the statement "Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) played a key role in planning and executing the riots" does not provide a really reputable source and does not clearly mention or prove their role in these massacres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KR72 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jammu-Kashmir-Ladakh.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2020

This edit is unfaithful since it manipulating reliably sourced content. Please revert it. TIA. 45.117.67.73 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

 Reverted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

180.188.247.5 (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

okkokokokokokkkokokkokkko

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Terasail^[Talk] 10:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Problematic "copyediting"

Zeex.rice, the original text said:

Subsequently, many non-Muslims, estimated as over 20,000, were massacred by Pakistani tribesmen and soldiers, in the Mirpur region of today's Pakistani administered Kashmir.

References

Your edit changed it to:

The killings prompted the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistani tribal militias from the North-West Frontier Province, following which around 20,000+ Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in Mirpur, today located in the Pakistani-administered territory of Pakistani administeredAzad Jammu and Kashmir.

References

What kind of copyediting is this? Which source has said that the killings "prompted" the invasion? Which source has made the connection between "invasion" and the Mirpur massacre? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you already pointed out that the sources were WP:NEWSORG and not reliable for history, so my points don't stand here. Thanks for clarifying. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize that it was based on the citations that I deleted. Note that both Saeed Naqvi as well as the Newsclick guy are basing their commentaries on The Times report. And we reject The Times report in the main body of the article. The Times report was written by a Pakistani official anonymously (named as a "Special Correspondent"). Not any old official, but a Political Officer who had served in Gilgit and was now acting as a Deputy Secretary in the Foreign Service (which also handled princely states in the Pakistan government). He was closely involved with Pakistan's case in the United Nations. So he wrote this article in The Times and then cited himself in the United Nations, to prove that Pakistan was acting reasonably and all the faults were with the Kashmir regime or India.

The Jammu massacres did not "provoke" Pakistan's invasion. The invasion plans were made way back on 20 August, within five days of Pakistan's independence! So none of these excuses hold any water.

I hope I won't see this kind of POV pushing from you again in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

By end of September

I am deprecating this line

By late September, migration to Pakistan halves Jammu City's muslim population, with only about 50000 remaining.

References

There are many many reasons why this is entirely dubious.

• Snedden attributes the information to a report in CMG, which was apparently an API news story. The same story also said that 50,000 Muslims leave for Pakistan "everyday". Pretty sloppy.
• The information about Jammu City's Muslim population having been halved is from Chattha, and his source is a Pakistan Times news story (an upstart newspaper) and this is supposed to have occurred by "mid-September"!
• Apparently the same Pakistan Times report also said that Muslims were congregating in camps near the police lines in Jammu, and they were demanding that Pakistan take responsibility for their safety after the closure of the Jammu-Sialkot line. The closure happened on 18 September. And the news report was the next day.
• Till the end of September, the army and the police of the state were commanded by British officers. And the Jammu Brigade was commanded by a Muslim officer, Brigadier Khuda Bakhsh.
• General Scott, the Army chief, has stated in his final report that about 100,000 Muslims from East Punjab were escorted through the State by the State Forces (and an equal number of non-Muslims in the reverse direction).
• According to Prem Shankar Jha, the communal situation in the state was entirely calm throughout September (except for the troubles in Poonch).
• Nobody has cited any corroborating information. Only single sources have been provided.

Most of all, Yusuf Saraf states that two thousand Muslims had arrived in Sialkot by 10 October. This essentially contradicts CMG as well as the Pakistan Times. I find the whole thing quite dubious. It is possible that the CMG was reporting the Punjabis being escorted by the State Forces as "Jammu Muslims" (one of the explanations that Snedden himself offers). The Pakistan Times was likely just reproducing gossip or rumour or even propaganda. It is not for nothing that the Jammu-Sialkot railway was stopped.

Hindian1947, please take note, and remove the line also from other places where you might have copied it to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Is KashmirLife a reliable source?

I believe the neutrality should be there rather than using citation from one of the party. abhilashkrishn ^talk 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a mainstream news source. But, since it is a magazine rather than a newspaper, it also has a variety of articles by specialists. They have to be taken based on the reliability of the authors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Chattha

I suggest against using Ilyas Chattha at all; unlike his excellent CUP monograph on Punjab Partition, his older scholarship on Kashmir is too shabby. I cannot even understand whether he had bothered to read the many scholars who have meticulously discussed the intricacies of our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean the OUP monograph (his PhD thesis)? That and other publications derived from it are used. Nothing older. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Chattha's OUP work, derived from his PhD thesis, seems quite sub-optimal, that I am reading it now, and I am advocating against using it at all; contrast the quality—for one, accepting questionable sources at face value—with Chattha (CUP; 2021).

As much as I like to use excellent PhD theses, experience is a factor. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen the recent book. Thanks for the pointer. We didn't use Chattha because we loved him, but we used him as per NPOV. If there are better sources, those cites can be replaced. But we can't omit the Pakistani perspective entirely, even if we believe it to be wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Tables

Why does the Jammu table use 2011 census figures, when the figures for 1961, 1971 and 1981 are also available and are no less (or more) reliable? Given that 1961 is much closer to 1947 than 2011 is, shouldn't those figures be used? And another query that I have is, don't these tables constitute original research? UnpetitproleX (talk)

The district boundaries of 2011 align with those of 1947.

As for WP:OR, it is not. This is the only way there is to estimate the extent of killings. Both Ian Copland and Christopher Snedden tried to do this kind of analysis, but they couldn't do it because of the district alignment problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

District alignment has a simple solution: tehsil level figures. The tehsil boundaries follow largely the same alignment in 2011 as they did in 1961, and do not differ from 1941 alignments any more than the 2011 ones do. Give me a few minutes, I will share 1961 census figures. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

These are the figures, per the 1961 district census handbooks:

Jammu district, in 1961, was 10% Muslim (out of a total of 516,932) down from 39.6% (of 431,362) in 1947

Kathua district was 13% Muslim (out of 207,430 total) down from 25.3% (177,672) in 1947

Udhampur and Reasi were collectively 55.1% (379,167 out of 687,833) in 1961. According to the 1947 figures mentioned here, Udhampur and Reasi collectively were 54.3% (out of 563,916) Muslim.

Here are the detailed censuses for the districts: Jammu, Kathua, Doda, Udhampur, and Poonch (whose Rajouri and Nowshera tehsils are part of Reasi).

As for the whole Jammu province (excluding Poonch and Mirpur), in 1961 it was 32.41% Muslim (457,734 out of 1,412,195 total).

Jammu district 51,847 Muslims out of 516,932 total; Kathua district 27,005 out of 207,430; Udhampur district 86,059 out of 254,061; Doda district 174,499 out of 268,503; and Poonch district (only Rajouri and Nowshera) 118,324 out of 165,369. UnpetitproleX (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the table makes little sense, and suggest using the 1961 data. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I had originally made a spreadsheet with every census that I could get hold of at that time. Unfortunately, that sheet is now lost due to some Excel malfunction. But I recall that there was some problem or the other with every year other except the recent ones.

UnpetitproleX, why don't you make a similar table to what is on the page with the 1961 data and we can see what it looks like. The formula mentioned in footnote [f] h can be used with any census year. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC) corrected Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The toal for Jammu province is obtained by adding up the districts (not via the formula). Since the formula is nonlinear, it should not be used for regions with widely varying loss rates. So, even the district level data is not great. Smaller regions (like tehsils) would give a more accurate picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

For Jammu district the figure per the formula chalks up to 141,870.

For Kathua district this figure is 25,119.

The total thus obtained is 166,989.

But ofcourse, this figure does not include those migrants that returned, since they were already accounted for in the 1961 census (even the figure obtained through 2011 census wouldn’t include returned migrants).

Udhampur and Reasi show a marginal increase in the proportion and population of Muslims, from 54.3% (about 306,206) in 1941 to 55.1% (379,167) in 1961. It actually shows an excess of 10,047 per the formula.

If this excess is also included, then the total obtained becomes 156,942.

Poonch Jagir goes from 90% Muslim in 1941 to more than 97% Muslim in 1961. The Indian-administered parts of Poonch were 95.83% (138,318 out of 144,336) Muslim in 1961.

In fact, all districts of Indian side of the Jammu province except for Jammu and Kathua show an increase in 1961. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you copy the table here and replace the 2011 by 1961 data? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Having tabulated the 1961 data, I can confirm that it doesn't make much difference. The loss of Muslims accordng to 1961 census is 244,590. According to the 2011 census, it is 246,356. The difference is marginal and falls in the realm of noise. On the other hand, I find considerable movement between the districts between 1961 and 2011. I can update the table with the 1961 data if you want. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the table:

Region	1941	1941 Muslim proportion	1961 Muslim proportion	Loss of Muslims (est)
Jammu District	431,362	39.6%	10%	141,870
Kathua District	177,672	25.3%	13%	25,119
Udhampur & Reasi Districts	563,916	54.3%	55.1%	-10,047
Jammu province (exc. Poonch and Mirpur)	1,172,950	44.5%	32.41%	156,942

Could you please cross check to make sure the calculations and figures are correct? And could you also please share the table that gives the 244,590 figure using 1961 census here? I can't get my head around how could we possibly be getting such different figures. UnpetitproleX (talk)

The Rajouri tehsil has gone missing from your data. Can you also add a column for the 1961 population, so that we can check if you are dealing with the same geographic units as stated? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can also remove the Nowshehra tehsil, which was originally in the Mirpur district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Rajouri tehsil is included in my “Udhampur & Reasi Districts” column. I have also included the Nowshehra tehsil, which is a mistake, thanks for pointing out! Let me remove the Nowshehra figures. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I put the Udhampur and Reasi districts together is that the district census handbooks give the total figures, but do not break them down into tehsils for the 1961 Udhampur district (they only do so for the rural areas of the tehsils of Udhampur dist, but not for the urban areas). So instead I just put the Rajouri and Nowshera tehsil figures (which are available) together into the Udhampur and Doda district figures to obtain the collective “Udhampur and Reasi Districts” figure. Though my bad, I should exclude Nowshehra. On it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

1961 data

Here is my table. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

How did you arrive at the 27.6% figure for Udhampur district in 1961? I think this is the main source of the difference in our figures. Doda district alone had about 174,462 Muslims. This alone accounts for about 40.8% of the population of the full Udhampur district (ie Udhampur + Doda of 1961)! And if we include Muslims of 1961 (smaller) Udhampur district, then this % will be more than 40.8. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Pinging @Kautilya3: @TrangaBellam:

Sorry, I had an editing error for the Doda Muslim population. Fixing it gives the table below.

So, now, what do we make of this data? The Udhampur ditrict (as of 1941) gained 30K Muslims, which it lost again by 2011? And, Reasi lost another 45K Muslims too? Altogether, about 100K Muslims from the whole Division? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It did not “lose” Muslims. There has been excessive inter-district migration and alongside that many have moved out of the territory and into other regions of India. Many Muslim leaders also allege that Muslims in Jammu have tend to underreport their presence in some censuses. The gain in 1961 is mostly in Doda (from 58% Muslim in 1941 to 65% in 1961), and the census explains this jump by saying that Muslims escaping from other regions in 1947 went to Doda.

In fact, this is all the more reason to use the 1961 figures and not the 2011 figures. The 1961 figures are also much closer to 1947 in time and thus migrations post 1961 have not affected these figures. I am highly in favour of using the 1961 figures, because the 2011 figures are simply too far removed from 1947. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the 147,599 figure which you arrived at, or the 156,942 figure calculated by me (though this also included the predominantly Hindu Nowshehra tehsil), both do not include the 100,000 or more refugees that returned to Jammu province during 1948-51. For that matter, even the current figure using 2011 census does not include returned refugees. But the 2011 figure does include Muslim and Hindu immigrants from other parts of India, or from Kashmir division, or even other countries (such as Rohingyas). In light of these, using 1961 figures over 2011 figures makes even more sense. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any grounds for concluding that the retuned refugees are not included in the census. (In fact, that is where the differences come from in my view.) The number of migrants into the Doda district is given as 8K on p. 6. So, 33K is still inexplicable.

The bad quality of the census data for J&K is well-known. While this being generally the case, the 1961 data is especially suspicious because J&K was being run by a corrupt National Conference government under Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. It is only after G. M. Sadiq's time that some semblance of law and order returned to J&K.

Regarding the return of refugees, the Pakistanis estimate that 100K refugees returned to J&K. That roughly matches the 2011 figures I calculated. On the other hand, the National Conference government claimed that 200K refugees returned. This number magically matches the 1961 figures that we are now calculating. So that is doubly suspicious. If you are look at historical census data, you can see immediately that the 1961 data is botched up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:I meant that the figure obtained for “lost Muslims” doesn’t include refugees, not that the census doesn’t count them. I should’ve been clearer. What I mean is that the roughly 150,000 figure obtained using the 1961 census is in addition to the 100,000-200,000 returned refugees (meaning that total “lost” as result of the partition violence is 250,000-350,000, of which the returned refugees were “gained back”). And similarly the roughly 240,000 figure obtained using the 2011 census does not include the returned refugees (not the census itself, the figure of “lost Muslims”, if we include those who returned then the total of those who died or fled in 1947 becomes 340,000-440,000). UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The contention of 2011 being too far removed from 1947 still remains. Also it’s difficult to say which of the censuses is botched up. 1971 and 1981 censuses appear to be more botched up than the 1961. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, we tried. And found that the 1961 data was no good. There ends the matter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can still add the 1961 percentages as part of the article body, since the census’s figures are indeed used in almost all J&K articles. Though I still don’t understand why we can use 1961 figures eveywhere except the tables here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Region	1941	1941 Muslim proportion	1961	1961 Muslim proportion	Loss of Muslims (est)
Jammu District	431,362	39.6%	516,932	10.0%	141,870
Kathua District	177,672	25.3%	207,430	13.0%	25,142
Udhampur District	306,013	42.7%	427,302	48.3%	-33,334
Reasi District	257,903	68.1%	260,531	66.2%	14,050
Jammu province (exc. Poonch and Mirpur)	1,172,950	44.5%	1,412,195	32.41%	147,599

Notes

References

Returned refugees

Most people don't know that some of the refugees returned. Snedden writes:

When these people left their homes in J&K, many thought that they were leaving temporarily and that they would soon return when the situation in J&K and the subcontinent normalised. Few of these refugees ever returned home.

Since he copiously cites Yusuf Saraf, I presume that he just didn't see the information in the book.

But the first part of what he says is correct. Many of them left "temporarily" because they feared for their lives. They were first accommodated in the Jammu city behind the "police lines" (wherever they were). Pakistan stopped the Jammu-Sialkot train service, and they had no way to escape. Sometime after 15 October, J&K government informed Pakistan that it can't guarantee the safety of Muslims and that is when "refugee convoys" were arranged. The story of the convoys is fraught with many difficulties, but the numbers indicate most of them did reach Pakistan safely. After the war ended, a third of them returned.

The other two-thirds are still considered "temporarily displaced people" by Pakistan. They are not entitled to evacuee properties. Some of them moved to Azad Kashmir where they have been rehabilitated. But the ones in Pakistan proper are still in limbo.

I still need to write a section on the refugees. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Violence against Hindus and y

Unfortunately due to anti Hindu and anti Sikh bias in the article, there's no mention about large scale kabaili raids sponsored by Pakistan from Sialkot sector in bordering areas of districts of Jammu and Kathua which destroyed several villages and killed hundreds of Hindus . One can read reports of those times the state administration asked Pakistan to stop those raids and to honour standstill agreement . Also there's no mention about thousands of Hindus and Sikhs massacred in Bhimber Tehsil of Mirpur District. And why Pakistani sources are that important when they themselves are agressors? And why British accounts are mentioned even when they're fake. There was no newspaper report mentioned as Sneeden himself admitted that he even doesn't know of any such massacre of Muslims if and where it happened. And by data, the Muslim population which left was largely from Kathua and Jammu districts and the total muslim population was around 2 lakh. So how come half a million displaced? Pakistan itself reported somewhere around 02 lakh Muslim refugees from Jammu in Sialkot and adjoining districts and parts of PoJk. They even reseve seats for them.

Also the erstwhile Udhampur district ( which included Doda Kishtwar Ramban districts Before accession or partition of the state), has same demographics rather more Muslims than it had before accession. One can add modern day Udhampur Doda Kishtwar Ramban districts ( which is the actual Udhampur District of those times and Kishtwar bhaderwah and Ramban were it's Tehsils then). Also comparison with 1961 numbers will be better when both districts of Jammu and Kathua had around 10% muslim population. Unlike Pakistani side of Jammu Province ( Mirpur and Poonch) which wiped out it's Hindus and Sikhs population completely, Indian side of Jammu Province retained 75% of it's Muslims. I hope Wikipedia acts more neutral! Though I've very little expectation given it's bias 117.98.108.243 (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you sources to add to the article? ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 05:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Violence against Hindus and Sikhs

Wikipedia is showing a lot of Anti Hindu and anti Sikh bias by removing the 20,000+ Hindus and Sikhs massacred in Mirpur of Jammu Province . And also last month in Hindu and Sikh casualty was 50000+ and now suddenly just large number in Mirpur why?? Some anti Hindu guy gave you orders? 117.98.103.101 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Violence against Hindus and Sikhs

Since you have kept this article protected then how did the casualty number of Hindus and Sikhs dropped?? 30000 Hindus and Sikhs slaughtered in Rajouri of Jammu Province and 20000+ Hindus and Sikhs slaughtered in Mirpur city and tens of thousands in bhimber Kotli bagh sudhanoti and other parts of Jammu Province makes the number much above 60000 still so much anti Hindu bias?? 117.98.103.101 (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mirpur massacre

Where's the article on Mirpur massacre?? Why it has been removed?? Why 25000+ Hindus and Sikhs who were massacred in Mirpur city of Jammu Province not mentioned?? 117.98.103.101 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Mirpur massacre

Bal K Gupta book on " Memoirs of survivor from Mirpur" gives a very detailed account on how 20,000+ Hindus and Sikhs were slaughtered in Mirpur city of Jammu Province In November - December 1947. He's one of the survivors of that massacre. Still why it's not mentioned.. And why such a large and completely fake range given in muslim killed as even POJk justice Saraf has admitted that number of muslims killed is around 20k. But in case of Hindus and Sikhs where even if one not take into account bhimber kotli Bagh sudhanoti muzzafarabad baramulla etc just alone in Rajouri and Mirpur city, 50000+ Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in October - November'47 117.98.103.101 (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change in introduction [ from many non- muslims massacred in Mirpur region] to [ more than 20,000 Hindus and Sikhs massacred in Mirpur region]. 117.98.103.101 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop posting numerous repetitive requests, please read previous talk page discussions about the issues you are raising, and please provide reliable sources supporting the content you wish to add. Gupta's book has been discussed before, and does not meet the threshold of reliability to make such an exceptional claim. Please also do not make comments about the motives of other editors. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Population figures

[[ Please consider the request use 1961 Census for comparison of population as compared to 2011. The reason is in 1990, lakhs of Kashmiri pandits as well as terror victims from different parts of Jammu Province, settled in the Jammu district in and around Jammu City ( besides around a lakh West Punjab Hindu and Sikh Refugees who settled in Jammu and Kathua districts in '47 itself). So clearly the population change of 1961 is better reflection of population figures than 2011 when population of Hindus and Sikhs particularly in Jammu district is bound to increase on account of lakhs of Kashmiri Hindu Pandit refugees from the Valley of Kashmir as well as many Hindus and Sikhs from other parts of Jammu Province. So if more accurate 1961 figure is used then a more accurate loss of muslims can be identified which is around 1 lakh 50 thousand. And not 2 lakh something as mistakenly identified. As Jammu district and Kathua district had 10% Muslims in 1961. The reason now Hindu and Sikh population has increased as % is because of Kashmiri pandits Hindu refugees from Kashmir valley as well as Hindu and Sikh from different parts of Jammu Province on account of terror during 90s. This is genuine request and if Wikipedia is not biased against one section it'll consider it. Thanks]] 117.98.120.4 (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

The sources are not credible and the facts are distorted. This article is a lie. Kk01011991 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)