Talk:History of Jammu and Kashmir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Early History

The early history of Kashmir should be better compiled/expanded.

I'm tempted to add a reference to the Kashmiri king Lalitaditya Muktapida, who ruled from 724 to 760 and conquered most of Northern India and Central Asia. During the time of Lalitaditya, Kashmiri rule apparently covered an area from Tibet in the east to Iran and Turkey in the west and from Central Asia in the north to Orissa and the seashores of Dwarka in the south. I would have to fact-check that first - but maybe someone knows more?

Does anyone have more detailed information about the Dynasties of ancient Kashmir? Might be a good starting point.

MaxNemo 20:32 GMT, 2 November 2007


[edit] 1847-1947

This article should have more information about the period between 1847 and 1947 as this period of the Dogra's, notably Gulab Singh and Hari Singh provide a part of the context of the conflict that originated after that period. In this period the so called Dogra's ruled the area as a Hindu-state with privileges for Hindu's and increasing marginalisation of the musliminhabitants. A good book with lots of sources which handles about the context of this period, especially with regard to the rights of the 95% of the citizens that were not hindu, the peaceful resistancemovement in the 1930's and the interest of the leaders for their posessions in Punjab compared to the interest they had in their own land Kashmir, is:

Rai, M. Hindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects, Islam, Rights, and the History of Kashmir (2004) ISBN 1850657017

My knowledge of english is not so good that I consider myself able to write about it, so if somebody could look into it, it would be greatly appreciated.--Hardscarf 08:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the decolonization section could use a bit of work. From my limited knowledge of the partition process much seems to be left out

[edit] Religion of Maharaja Hari Singh

Was Maharaja Hari Singh really a Hindu? His last name seems to imply he was Sikh. Kitabparast 02:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Singh is surname of many communities, some of them are sikhs. He was realy real a Hindu :) 70.64.14.114

== Etymology. ==


The etymology doesnt seem to include the more accepted root of the word kashmir.since sage kashyap is said to have formed this land it was referred to as "kashyap more " which ended up being kashmir over time.The definition given is less accepted than this one.strange that this isnt there.

[edit] Forced conversion to Islam?

This section is basically an opinion with no supporting facts. Muslims with Hindu last names is not proof of forced conversion. Forceful conversion from Hinduism to Islam is more of a myth in the minds of Hindu Chauvanists. It was the exception and not the rule (if it ever happened at all). Even when the Sultans, as in the case of Sikandar Butshikan, where intolerant and cruel towards Hindus, they were not forced to convert. If forced conversions were official policy then the percentage of Muslims in Kashmir would have been closer to 100%.

There are other cases in the world which proove that Islam can spread rapidly without any force being involved. For example, Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population at around 200 million, yet no Muslim army ever invaded that country to convert the locals. And Indonesia is not unique in this respect in south east asia. The same is true of Malaysia and the Island of Mindanao.

Similarly, there are about 50 million Muslims in China, and a greater number in Russia. Yet no Muslim army has ever set foot in these regions. In addition, Muslims ruled Spain for over 700 years, yet they were never in a significant majority there. 700 hundred years was enough time to convert the whole country, but the Catholics and Jews were not forced to change their religion. The opposite did happen when Christians reconqueed Spain, and there were no Muslims to be found there. Another example is that of the Turks who ruled over eastern Europe for centuries. Yet today the region is almost exclusively Christian.

Even today, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, even though Muslims are politically one of the weakest groups in the world. In the United States (my home country) more than 2 million people have converted to Islam in the last 30 years or so. This, despite Islam's highly negative perception in American society, and no worldly incentive to convert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.215.174 (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

20 million converted to Islam in 30 years in the US ? Do you have any official statistics?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.39.241 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This section takes into view all the 'possible' reasons for mass conversion during the 14th Century & is at all not biased. It does not make any sense to compare different geographis ( Indonesia or present day US). The topic of discussion here is " mass conversionsduring the 14th Century Kashmir. Mass conversion to an alien religion is almost always forced...I wonder what makes you disbelieve that ! Also, there're enough historical records to prove that . Kindly take a look at the formal & informal records of various historians.

[edit] ====UNNECESSARY DETAILS. SHOWS OPINIONS AND CONJUNCTURE====

This whole section 'Islamic conversion in Kashmir' is 1. out of place (it may as well be a separate subject if well researched and scholarly). 2. It lacks the typically high scholarly standards of wikipedia because: it speaks of opinions and conjunctures and lacks citations. The fact that this section of supposed history speaks critically of both Hindus and Muslims does not make it necessarily unbiased. It falls very short of scholarly standards and is therefore disputable and its neutrality is seriously questionable. The inclusion of this section undermines the otherwise well written and somewhat researched article. It's a shame it had to be so. I hope the entire section is either removed or very seriously brought up to the scholarly standards one expects from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.168.132 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover the above commentator needs to seriously substantiate his claims. For example "Mass conversion to an alien religion is almost always forced...I wonder what makes you disbelieve that !" This is a highly opinionated comment. What does the author mean by 'almost always'? Posing this statement as an axiomatic fact does not mean the author is resolved of his duty to provide accurate and specific historic references. "Also, there're enough historical records to prove that . Kindly take a look at the formal & informal records of various historians." I hope the writer kindly cites these 'formal and informal records' of his 'various historians.' Just posing a statement as an axiom and capping it by reference to 'formal and informal records of various historians' is a classic use of sophistic argument. It speaks of utter unfaithfulness of any scholarly ideals from any age. Kindly substantiate your comments and revise the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.168.132 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)