Talk:British Mirpuris

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

Mirpuris are from Pakistan[edit]

Mirpuris are from pakistan. Government wanted to make a damn so paid mirpuris money to move. most used this money to come england instead of going to an urban area in pakistan. Hence when they came to england they lived like villagers and hence all the problems in UK with pakistanis, such as uneduation, forced marriages etc and failure to integrate in the community as compared to other more educated pakistani families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.183.174 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(^lol, haters going to hate. 'uneducation', is that even a word? you do know that the next generation is geared towards education) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabs1985 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Dam nonsense, I say![edit]

I feel its important to clarify the fact that "Mirpuris" started coming to the UK long before Mangla Dam was built. The earliest Kashmiri person to have to have settled in Britain is thought to have been a Kashmir woman called Jani who married a British office Major Robert Thorpe. The people of Mirpur have had a history of migrating to other parts of the world seeking work as limited agricultural land in the region and non-existent jobs in other areas forced them to go and work on ships in Bombay (or what is known as Mumbai today) a number of people landed in Britain while employed on ships mainly as labourers and chose to live here. The construction of Mangla Dam meant that the few who had stayed back and worked in agriculture had lost their livelihood too and sought to migrate. This migration had to be to a country where their countrymen had already been migrating to for a number of years, hence the influx to Britain began and thousands landed in England and other parts of Britain in the sixties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.128.248 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpuris are subject of Kingdom of Jammu Kashmir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Mirpur is and was part of Jammu State and it is also part of union of Jammu Kashmir state ,now under occupation of bloody Paksiatn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the previous mumble jumble hypothesis[edit]

"Dear fellow readers / writers,

I feel the need to justify my well valued action on behalf of some of the Pahari community, of whom feel deeply offended by previous statements. The reason as to why I have edited the page, is that as for those of you whom do not seem to care much about "Pahari bashing", many people are chastisised and labeled "mirpuri", when they have carried no such label to their heritage seen as far as they can remember. Thus many see this as a derogotary term that outsiders use for them, should you choose to confirm this, do take the time out to do primary research and see on the internet or face to face conversation with Pahari people from the Pahari block of Azad Kashmir, how they are discriminated against by other groups and labelled a term that for many of them is alien, and some will tell you how much they hate the term. These people are Pahari speaking, now let us cease to have this "Mirpuri" nonsense and do justice to humanity, by seeing them for the people they are and realising how they feel and what they want. I shall urge you therefore to if you see fit add anything else to the page, but please do acknowledge that some do see this as derogotary" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.211.0 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above being my last comments before being removed without a reason being given. Discussion is about both sides of the argument, I am disgusted at the fact that an individual in this discussion board may feel that he/she has the right to delete posts and alienate fellow viewers/readers from being exposed to different strands of arguments on the subject/s being discussed - this is an action which I find unacceptable.

Furthermore, it would only be fair to inform the individual who posted the last strand that it is true that the people of Mirpur are from Azad Kashmir, and many choose to identify themselves with Pakistan, however some organisations/groups such as the UN do not hold the same belief and it would be unfair to not take this into account when discussing the semantics of the label " Mirpuri".

Secondly, it is valid to argue that the creation of the Mangla Dam extracted from many people from Mirpur their lands, histories, art and established lifestyles, however it would be incorrect to argue that this was the case for all the people originating from or whom trace their ancestry to Mirpur, for many sold their land ( to other buyers as opposed to selling to the government) in order to pave a passage to the UK and secondly the development of the Mangla Dam did not affect all the people who reside in Mirpur today - for the boundaries have since changed.

Also may I point out that those whom were paid compensation received from the government monies for which the government purchased the lands of the citizens of Mirpur- this was after all their ancestral homeland and thus this was their due ( though it may have been a lot less than adequate) Do forgive my approach but I fail to see the light in what you are trying to argue? Either argument that you may choose to adopt both can lead to the conclusion that the people of Mirpur of whom some migrated to the UK paved their passage with their own money- regardless of how they earned this money, it was their due- they have the spending power as a consumer to spend as and how they may wish whether they choose to reside in an "urban" or rural area is not a matter for us to ponder upon.

This by no means allows us to make any type of generalisations about what wholly triggered the migration of the people of Mirpur. Nevertheless, some may have obtained their money through compensation but this is their personal matter and furthermore there were people from Mirpur who migrated to England much before the creation of the Mangla Dam. May I reiterate that I do not have an issue with the fact that these are your views but rather with the fact that you tried to remove the views of others - which does not allow a firm ground for argument and discussion.

What continues, is a quote from your last post. "Hence when they came to england they lived like villagers and hence all the problems in UK with pakistanis, such as uneduation, forced marriages etc and failure to integrate in the community as compared to other more educated pakistani families."

The above quote to me seems like a mere generalisation for one, I for one do not understand what you are trying to point out by saying that the people of Mirpur lived like "villagers" in England and thus could not integrate. Do you propose to argue that those native English citizens whom live in villages are not integrated?

Is village life a sign of total alienation? Britain does have its villages and villagers of whom many are well integrated as we all know; the popular British soap "Emmerdale" is set in a village setting and is viewed by many English people - so how well does this fit into your hypothesis about village life?

Secondly, the above quote suggests that you are arguing that the problems of forced marriages and lack of education ( I feel that is what you may mean by your spelling of "uneduation") are problems associated with village life? If you would care to do a little reading you will see that there are villages in England where education thrives and to say the least there has been no recent report of forced marriage as far as I am aware, if there is then please do direct me to the source.

Thus I feel that it would be valid to argue that your argument has no firm basis. Furthermore it would be valid to argue that your post is a perfect example of mere generalisations.

Should you feel that I have misinterpreted any of your views do feel free to respond and provide any critical evaluation/ constructive criticisms, as this is exactly what discussion is about and I would very much appreciate to see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.194.158 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mirpur is not in Jammu, it's in Kashmir[edit]

Please people for sake of quality articles, can you keep politics to yourselves: I have made several changes to this article, as Mirpur is being referred to as being in Jammu when it is clearly in Kashmir, or rather "Azad Kashmir" or Pakistani-Administered Kashmir, I'm sure I've now covered all the political areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir

""""Contrary to the efforts of many Mirpuri people to identify themselves as Kashmiri, they are from the Jammu area and are Jammuites. Many belong to the Punjabi castes such as the Jatts, Choudharys, Sudhans, Rajput etc. Kashmiris on the other hand are a Dardic people who speak the koshur language and are culturally and linguistically totally different to Mirpuris.""""

Please! Surely you have something against these people, however this is an encyclopedia, not a bashing wall! Therefore I have removed the above extract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.230.26 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Mirpur is part of Jammu and Jammu is part of Jammu Kashmir Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur is in the Jammu part of AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR (AJK)- Pakistani administered[edit]

^^^^To the above ^^^^

Please go read some history as well as geography. Mirpur is in Jammu, Kashmir is ONLY THE KASHEER VALLEY where the people speak kashmiri (koshur). Mirpur was packaged within Jammu in 1852 by the British who used the River Jhelum as demarcation of the borders between Jammu & kashmir and Punjab. Also the Pakistani administered area is ALSO CALLED Azad JAMMU & Kashmir (AJK). Please don't distort facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.188.155 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now a days Mirpur is under occupation of Pakistan and Mirpuris are given to British as mordern slaves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mirpur is in the Jammu part of AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR (AJK)- Pakistani administered[edit]

I'm not distorting facts, on the contrary, far from it. Mirpur is no longer referred to as being in 'Jammu'. 'AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR (AJK)' refers to the whole area of Pakistani Adminstered Kashmir. You will find no reference to 'Jammu' being marked as a district or a state on offical Pakistani Administered Kashmir maps, on the other hand 'Jammu' is clearly marked on official Indian Administered Kashmir maps. I would surmise that the local populace do not even consider themselves as being in 'Jammu', as it does not exist as any sort of entity, it once did, but not anymore. I think what we have to bear in mind is that borders change and names of places change, this has been a continuing trend throughout history. For example 'Mercia' was one of the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. It was located in the valley of the River Trent in the region today known as the Midlands. Today, it would be incorrect to say Birmingham is in 'Mercia' and the people are known as 'Mercians'. Whether you like it or not the word 'Kashmir' has become an identity of the people of Pakistani Administered Kashmir even though they do not speak 'Koshur'. To give another example, take the word 'Afghan', though historically synonymous with the Pashtun people, is today promoted as a national identity for a whole range of ethnic groups in Afghanistan. It is quite lucid that your motives for this article are purely political. From what I can tell you seem to have an aversion for the so called 'Mirpuri' people. I suggest you get over it as life is too short and rather than harboring hatred, enjoy life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.230.26 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]

it is not AJK but POK POk just like other side is IOK IOK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) POK = Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, IOK = India Occupied Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.37.33 (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Mirpur is in the Jammu part of AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR (AJK)- Pakistani administered[edit]

I would like to point out to you that place names are not classed as 'copyright' on the world map, thus many 'Mirpurs' exist as well as many 'Englands', so why does it become so difficult to grasp the idea that Mirpur is in Azad 'Kashmir'. The name 'Kashmir' is not reserved for one place alone! Maybe you are implying that we should go back to referring to all names as per status in 1852?

Should they - the people of Mirpur choose to call themselves 'Kashmiris', they are free to choose their name / label as were the Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis.

Should you feel that I have misinterpreted any of your views do feel free to respond and provide any critical evaluation/ constructive criticisms, as this is exactly what discussion is about and I would very much appreciate to see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.230.26 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008

Dear Writers,


Lets get a few things clear. As far as the world is concerned the place is called Kashmir. Full stop. That's it. No one people is more Kashmiri than the other. They are all Kashmiris. Know that was not difficult was it!!! Regional identifies do exist. There is nothing wrong with that. For example Mirpuri, Ladhaki etc Whats the problem? You people have a problem with this? Unity bothers you people? We should divide ourselves? This kind of nonsense is not going to benefit us.

The Kashmir people as a whole don't have a brain. Its probably because of that reason that so many areas were put together and called Kashmir. That's the reality whether we like it or not. I for one would have no problem being separate and Mirpuri if the people of Kashmir don't want me. It does not bother me.

Everybody wants to feel important. Well I say Kashmiris, Kosher Language etc Keep it. IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT IT!!!! I have an identity! I am MIRPURI AND THAT'S FINE BY ME!!!

Do you think I would want to part of a group of people who despise me, hate me? Wrong, nobody puts up with that. I REALLY HATE THIS SUPERIORITY RUBBISH.

By the way not all mirpuris are uneducated I have a BSC degree!! I can read and write in English and Urdu.

RACIAL STEREOTYPES HAVE NO PLACE IN A CIVIL SOCIETY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.68.252 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2009


it's the punjabis who cannot stand the fact that we have a huge stake in hte UK as expats and the fact that we are a part of a Greater Kashmir, which has more to offer than their punjab. we are azad jammu and kashmiri's end of. kashmir valley is the heart of greater kashmir similar to manchester and the other parts are boroughs in the greater region. a nice thing is that we also share the tongue of the potohar plateau which seats the rawalpindi people and islamabad the capital city. a double whammy, Azaadi! ;) we are ready to pool our resources and build something better than punjab, people from ajk cant even vote properly, misgovernance is not good and encouraged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabs1985 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 April 2011

Cousin marriages[edit]

Is there any proof that cousin marriages are a "health a social issue?" As far as I know, the genetic risk involving cousin marriages is very low.--Kohelet (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


According to ‘A Better Start to Life – Reducing the Number of Infant Deaths in Birmingham’ (i) Pakistani babies born in the city to consanguineous relationships are 3.2 times more likely to have congenital anomalies than non-consanguineous groups of the same ethnic origin.

In West Yorkshire the Bradford and District Infant Mortality Commission made one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive studies (ii) comparing infant mortality amongst indigenous and Pakistan-born populations. In Bradford almost half of all babies are born to mothers of South Asian origin.

Between 1996 and 2003 infant mortality amongst babies born to Pakistani women in Bradford was 12 (male) and 16 (female) per thousand. This compared to just 8 (m&f) deaths per thousand for white babies.

Amongst Pakistani babies however around four boys per thousand, and six girls per thousand, died from congenital abnormalities – four times the level amongst white babies. Even amongst children of second-generation Pakistani mothers infant mortality due to congenital anomalies is little different.

More worrying are the findings published in ‘Born in Bradford’ (iii) published 2007. That report notes that ‘the prevalence of infant and childhood disability has been found to be 10 times higher in Pakistani-origin children than other ethnic groups’.

Other studies suggest that cousin marriages roughly double the chances of having a child with a congenital illness. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.254.3 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. May be some support for a move to British Mirpuris, but not enough consensus here to make that move. Number 57 14:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Mirpuri community → British Kashmiris – In a recent redirect discussion for British Kashmiri, some editors expressed concern that this article only discusses British people from the Pakistani side of Kashmir. Others countered that British Kashmiris overwhelmingly come from the Pakistani side, but obviously there are also some immigrants from the Indian side. I think the best solution is to expand the scope of the article; it can make clear that most British Kashmiris are from Pakistan while still discussing those that are from India. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khestwol, but British Kashmiris redirect to this article, what about that? Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 09:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Human3015 thanks for pointing that out. Kashmiris are indeed a Dard people, but Mirpuris are not, so there is a huge difference. I guess Kashmiri diaspora (or Kashmiri diaspora#United Kingdom) should be the destination of the redirect from "British Kashmiris". I am fixing it, regards, Khestwol (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the article is very specifically on immigrants from Mirpur District living in the UK, and as per the wide range of academic sources available at British Pakistanis, they make up nearly 70% of the British Pakistani community. Also, Mirpuris are ethnically distinct from the Kashmiri people from Jammu and Kashmir. They are referred to as Kashmiri because the region they come from (Azad Kashmir) is part of the wider Kashmir area. A title like British Kashmiri would be misleading and it would blur the difference between the ethnic origins of the community. Most sources on Mirpuri Kashmiris in the UK always contain reference to their place of origin which is Mirpur, hence the current title is accurate. If there are issues with the redirect, British Kashmiri can be redirected to the wider article Kashmiri diaspora. Mar4d (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the original title of this article was Mirpuri people before it was moved to the current one by a user [1]. That move should probably be a separate discussion too, since not all Mirpuris migrated to the UK. We can be open to the idea of having a general article on Mirpuris, which combines the British Mirpuri community and the Mirpuris in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, did you read my nomination? I know what the article is about now—I think it makes sense to expand its scope. If you disagree, say so, but your comment as is does not actually address the proposal. Also, I've started a redirect discussion for the former title of Mirpuri people; it sounds like we're in agreement on that one. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 6#Mirpuri people. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we're going to change the scope, "blur[ring] the difference between the ethnic origins of the community" really isn't a problem. If we make the article about people who move from Kashmir to Britain, it's just that. Compare to Americans in the United Kingdom, for example. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the nomination and my argument is based upon it. I don't see what is problematic about this title to warrant a move, or more precisely, what necessitates broadening the scope as you say. The group is notable based on coverage in WP:RS to have an article in its own right. When searching the term "British Kashmiri", all the search results yielded are actually on the Mirpuri immigrants from Pakistan. We'd first need to establish if there are a significant and notable number of immigrants from other parts of Kashmir to warrant a change in the scope of this article. That doesn't appear to be the case. And also, as I have said above, Mirpuri people from Kashmir are actually culturally different from ethnic Kashmiris. Mar4d (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Even though it was originally my idea to merge this article into a broader "British Kashmiris" article, after checking sources, I realize that it would be a mistake. Mirpuris have been essentially trying to rebrand themselves as Kashmiris for political reasons. Given their very reasonable view that Pakistan has not only overlooked their interests, but has unashamedly exploited both their environmental resources and their hard-earned financial assets, their self definition as Kashmiris, and not as Pakistanis, provides Mirpuris with a powerful means of both expressing and legitimising their grievances.[1] So this "Kashmiri" identity is artificial. We should leave it to Pakistanis to deal with that mess at their own leisure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Your source is quite old (dating 1991) and also partisan, so I would question some aspects of its reliability as far as relevance is concerned. However, it also contains many verifiable facts, particularly on the cultural identity of Mirpuris, which can be used to create a spin-off article on Mirpuri people. I'll dig more through the link as time permits me. Also, claiming the Kashmiri tag may carry some political connotations, but it would be far-fetched to assume that the Kashmiri identity is artificial. Kashmir is obviously a diverse region and is not populated by ethnic Kashmiris alone; there are various groups, including Potoharis, Dogras, Gujjars, Pandits, Ladakhis, Baltis, Shina, Tibetans etc. Most of these groups have very little in common with the ethnic Kashmiris, yet they are regarded Kashmiri in terms of residence. What matters at the end is that the Mirpuris are just one subset among these various groups inhabiting the region. Mar4d (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Support move to British Mirpuris. I am yet to see anything convincing to say that Mirpuris are not also Kashmiris and which to me seems a bit like saying that the Cornish are not English. GregKaye 08:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Mirpuris have ascribed to themselves a "Kashmiri identity," even though they are not ethnic Kashmiris. Neither is their homeland a part of the original Kashmir. It is part of Jammu. So, there are hidden complexities here. Here is another source: Prior to the early 1990s, most British Kashmiris called themselves Mirpuris or Pakistanis. The Mirpuri category was looked down on by other Pakistanis – Mirpuris were racially stereotyped as uneducated hill-people with little culture. Becoming Kashmiri is an important component of increasing the status and prestige of a group of British South Asians. The tiny UK community of Valley Kashmiris – people who speak Kashmiri – tend to socialize with other Valley Kashmiris. Some 500 families all told, a mixture of Hindus and Muslims, Valley Kashmiris maintain that they are Kashmiris – and Mirpuris are ‘nouveaux Kashmiris’.[2] I am not saying we should deny the Mirpuris their "Kashmiri identity." But it would be wrong to identify Mirpuri and Kashmiri. I think we need a separate article on British Kashmiris, in which the Mirpuris would definitely be a part, but there would also be other Kashmiris covered there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Mirpuris are not ethnic Kashmiris, though they belongs to region named Azad Kashmir still it doesn't make them Kashmiris. Term "Kashmiris" commonly used for people belongs to Kashmir valley. See talk page of British Pakistanis for more detailed discussion, UK census also call them as "Mirpuris" and not "Kashmiris". We should reserve term "British Kashmiris" for people from Kashmir valley who lives in UK.--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 07:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ballard, Roger (2 March 1991). "Kashmir Crisis: View from Mirpur". Economic and Political Weekly. 26 (9/10): 513–517. JSTOR 4397403.
  2. ^ Evans, Alexander (2005). "Kashmir: a tale of two valleys". Asian Affairs. 36 (1): 35–47. doi:10.1080/03068370500038989.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RE: Requested move 6 June 2015, wow what is wrong with you people?[edit]

Considering the level of education I'm assuming some of you have since you can clearly read and write, I'm astounded that you have agreed to create an article on "British Mirpuris", this is absolute bonkers! For a number of reasons:

1) Mirpur is a district in Pakistani Administered Kashmir, a large number of people emigrated from this area to the UK, HOWEVER Mirpur isn't the only place! There are other places too, such as Kotli, Bhimber and Muzzafrabad. Do you propose on making separate articles articles for each group? So British Kotlians, British Bhim... this absurd I don't even know how that word would even end!

2) I don't see articles on British Kandaharis from Afghanistan or British Sicilians instead you have British Afghans and British Italians, I think Wikipedia would fast run out of space, imagine having an article on people from the various states of the US who have emigrated to the UK! It would be silly and preposterous! I hope I'm making this clear!

I seem to get the impression that some people are hell bent on ensuring that "Mirpuri" people are not even associated with the word "Kashmir" or "Kashmiri", seriously this has to stop. What really saddens me today is that people with such an agenda have succeeded in putting wool over the moderators to make this approval. I must admit I initially impressed with the above discussion and it seemed cogent arguments were being made but somewhere down the line somebody agreed to having an article on "British Mirpuris". I propose we have British Kashmiris and then have sub sections for the various groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.118.212 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

Following a request at WP:RMT I have moved this to British Mirpuris. There was some support for this in the RM above, so I decided to allow it through, although if anyone objects they can ping me and we can discuss the matter (I guess the long term stable title is actually still British Mirpuri community following the failed RM above).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur is part of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

The word Mirpuri only refers to a person from Mirpur. The whole state of Kashmir was and still is often referred to as the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Prior to 1947 this whole area was an independent kingdom and Not part of India. The area of Mirpur came under Jammu district before 1947. Since then the state split into 2 parts. On one side you have Azad (free) Kashmir which includes Mirpur as one district and on the other side you have an illegal occupation by India which includes present day Jammu city. There is no language called Mirpuri...the language spoken is called Pahari and its other derivative known as Potohari. 158.181.16.168 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Mirpuris&oldid=1216178003"