Jump to content

Talk:Gilgit

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

Gilgit and Gilgit (disambiguation)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Gilgit. Duja► 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page should stay at Gilgit, a disambiguation page can be created separately at Gilgit (disambiguation), because the word Gilgit usually refers to the Gilgit that IS described on this page. Just like Opal has the main page and other meanings are written at Opal (disambiguation). Waqas.usman 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opal is much more known than Gilgit. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who defines "much more"? I don't know Opal, but I do know Gilgit. To anyone who's been to the Northern Areas (or has even heard about the places there), the single word Gilgit means Gilgit town, unless you specify Gilgit River or Gilgit District.
Also, see New York, it doesn't waste the main link of "New York" for a disambig page that says
New York may refer to
  • New York City
  • New York State
  • New York Police Department
  • New York Yankees
Did you note that New York City is more popular than New York State? The page New York by default tells about the main thing that's called New York, and that is New York State, unless you specify New York City (and it has a disambig link on top, just like the Gilgit page had before as well, you could expand that to a full disambig page). Same should be the case with Hunza and Gilgit; they should talk about the main thing that the word means, instead of wasting the most useful link on a disambig page. Do you get the point now or not?
If you still don't get it, I'd like you to change New York to a disambig page, first move the whole page to New York State. If you can't do that, don't do so with Hunza and Gilgit either. Waqas.usman 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What would it help if I move New York to dab? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Waqas.usman. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article[.] Clearly, the "majority of links in existing articles" test is met -- I went through the 79 pages that, as of today, contained links to Gilgit, and found that only 17 of them needed to be repointed to articles other than Gilgit, Pakistan (which I did). Of course, that is not the sole test, since it could lead to defining "consensus" based on who edited most recently. But I also note that Waqas.usman, who appears to be the only editor here familiar with common usage in the vicinity, has pointed out that "Gilgit" refers to the city in everyday use unless it is otherwise qualified. Finally, and to me most importantly, this is not a case like San Jose or Kingston where we have to disambiguate among a series of articles on places that are entirely unrelated except for coincidentally sharing a name. All of the "Gilgit" disambiguation targets are related to the city and its vicinity; a reader who accidentally ends up on Gilgit, Pakistan while searching for, say, the Gilgit Valley or Gilgit River will not have much trouble navigating to the correct article. So, that's a long-winded way of saying I support moving the disambig page to Gilgit (disambiguation) and changing Gilgit into a redirect to Gilgit, Pakistan. --Russ (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gilgit is part of india ao cant see that place as of pakistan 

Schopade007 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashi

[edit]

The Kashi that is being discussed in the Article, is it same as Varanasi? Currently that is where the redirect sends too. If this is not so, please mention the Kashi in the article into Kashi (disambiguation) and change the link.--Anupamsr 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reference to Kashgar and has been changed. --Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmi text??

[edit]

The text is not in Brahmi script. Any sources for the same? --the preceeding comment was added by 203.200.95.183 (talk) at 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UCT)

Fair use rationale for Image:C130.JPG

[edit]

Image:C130.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


== Havaldaar Lalak Jan (1967-1999): == 

is officially known as Havaldaar Lalak Jan Shaheed Nishan-i-Haider. He was born in Yasin, District Ghizer, in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. After schooling he joined the Pakistan army and was promoted to the rank of Havaladaar. As a junior officer of the Northern Light Infantry, he was one of those many who fought from the forefront to thwart heavy Indian attacks, in the Kargil *War in 1999. He volunteered himself to be deployed on the front positions and driven back many aggressive ventures by the Indian army.

== Nazir Sabir Nazir Sabir ==

Nazir Sabir Nazir Sabir is a Gilgit climber. He was born in Ramanji a small hamlet in Chiporsun, upper Hunza known as Gojal. He is the only Gilgit Person to have climbed Mount Everest and four of the five 8000m peaks in Pakistan. He has also climbed the world? second highest peak K2 in 1981, Gasherbrum II and Broad Peak in 1982. Despite his tour operator business Nazir Sabir has been remained member of the Northern Areas Legislative Council and Education Advisor of the administration of the Northern Areas of Pakistan. After the abolution of the Hunza State in 1974, for the first time he defeated the last Mir of Hunza? son Ghanzanfer Ali Khan.

Disputed :Supersian your reference and Citation seems to need correction

[edit]

Supersian the new section added by you seems to have a problem with the citation .page Text provided by you states :_
” The rulers of Hunza and Nager also claim origin with the Trakhàn dynasty. They claim descent from an exiled Kayani Prince of Persia by the name of Azur Jamshid, who secretly married the Buddhist king Shri Badat's daughter. Although prince Azur Jamshid succeeded the king after overthrowing him, he abdicated after 16 years of rule in favour of his wife Nur Bakht Khatùn until their son Garg, grew of age and assumed the title of Raja and ruled, for 55 years. The dynasty flourished under the name of the Kayani dynasty until 1421 when Raja Torra Khan assumed rulership. He ruled as a memorable king until 1475. He distinguished his family line from his step brother Shah Rais Khan (who fled to the king of Badakshan and with who's help he gained Chitral from Raja Torra Khan), as the now known dynastic name of Trakhàn. The descendants of Shah Rais Khan being respectfully known as the Ra'issiya Dynasty. Ref History of Civilizations of Central Asia By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich, Motilal Banarsidass Publ 1999, p216-217"


Now the reference and citation pages you have provided viz 216 and 217 to support this from History of Civilizations of Central Asia By Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich, Motilal Banarsidass Publ 1999, p216-217 . But page 216 and 217 discuss the Bronze age in Iran and Afghanistan with no mention whatsoever of the entire paragraph you have provided on the article page . You may have inadvertently provided the incorrect page and may like to correct this . Here s the link for the online edition I looked this up from .

History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Intothefire (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is correct, your book is wrong

[edit]

Hi intothefire,

The citation is absolutely correct, however the book you sourced may be wrong because as per this reference it is exactly page 216 and page 217. In fact the prince, Azur Jamshid himself is not mentioned anywhere as a Mohammedan (a false term, since Muslims are Muslims, who follow all Prophets with special onus on Muhammad (pbuh), this is a colonial term which displays the outdated and poorly sourced input of the reference you state) YET it states that the last king in fact was Buddhist.

Now I believe you added this added this reference because of your Hinduisation campaign reasons, since no scholar supports Sri Badat to have been a known confirmed acknowledged Hindu (great if he was, but kind of unfair to Hinduise a known Buddhist king dont you agree? Maybe not your fault dear boy, but certainly your authors fault lol).

References of this misinformation, and corrobration of Sri Badat's devoute Buddhist faith include;

1. Recent Research on Ladakh 4 & 5: Proceedings of the Fourth and Fifth by Henry Osmaston, Philip Denwood (1995 Motilal Banarsidas, p226)

2. History of Northern Areas of Pakistan by Ahmad Hasan Dani (1989, p163)

Gilgit has an immense Buddhist treasure of monuments etc to his day. My own opinion, I think previously in these remote areas, there was such a homogenous synthesis of cultures and races, that a definied religion may be hard to define since it would have extended and developed and progressed according to the nature of it's people etc.

Either way, citation stands correct, it was clearly NOT WRONG. I am removing your quote as it not only incorrect, but also uninformative as the info has already been recorded in the para's above, much more informatively by a recent book, rather than a rumour quote of nil proof....--Raja (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also endeavoured to bring a little history of this Sri Badat that you so ignorantly tried to romanticise with the title of the Last Hindu King intothefire, appears he was so hated and tyrannically oppressive, his people TO THIS DAY celebrate his destruction with celebrations annually....
Some authors though, still contend he was Hindu? Maybe that should be elaborated also....--Raja (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Supersian

Supersian your responses violate all the three principles of debate on wikipedia it is

  • impolite (Be polite) –
  • Does not assume good faith (Assume good faith)
  • Contains Personal attacks(No personal attacks)


1) As to my contention that "You may have inadvertently provided the incorrect page and may like to correct this . "
It would have sufficed for you to have simply repaired/ improved the online reference by either linking to the page or providing the ref to the volume, as apparently the book which you have cited ,appears to be in 5 volumes. .

Which is why we have the curious situation of two completely separate contents appearing for the referred pages from the book through ,

Contributor of link Link
Intothefire History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János where Page 214 to 217 discuss the The Bronze Age in Afghanistan
Supersian History of Civilizations of Central AsiaBy Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János


2) Next instead of concentrating on the article, in your haste to attack me personally (and my perceived motives) you have remarkably had to post content contradicting yourself in successive posts both in the article as well as in the talk page. For example on this talk page

Supersian post 17th March:

.

Supersian post 18th March

If your intention to insert balance , then where was no need to post this response . replete with sarcastic innuendos on this talk page .

3)Regarding your highlighting cannibalism and Shri Buddhot , this is best left to scholars with higher erudition than you or me , which is why I have provided a link to an interesting article by a Fullbright scholar . The demonizing of Hindu /Buddhist/Sikh indigenous sovereigns is not uncommon , a case in point that parallels the demonizing of Shri Buddot the last Hindu/Buddhist ruler of Gilgit , is the Chach Nama written by the relatives of Muhammad bin Qasim which demonises Raja Dahir the last Hindu ruler of Sindh .

As to weather Shri Buddhot was Hindu and Cannibal or if you would like to elaborate on prevalence of cannibalism in Hinduism and as you suggest "Some authors though, still contend he was Hindu Maybe that should be elaborated also" , please go ahead and elaborate .

4)Lets look at another point you make here justifying deletion from the article of cited content from a verifiable and notable source .
Supersian:


Well the cited content you have deleted from the article calling it a "rumor of nil proof " happens to be a quote from an important source on the subject viz Tribes of the Hindoo Kush by John Bidulph . I also fail to appreciate your appropriating editorial privilege by sitting in judgment of known historical sources .

In conclusion :

  • Be more civil in your debates
  • Stop deleting cited content on this or other articles .

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Does the History section under Gilgit city, belong under Gilgit District instead? --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Trakhàn

[edit]

Sri Badad was a Buddhist ruler as per Karl Jettmar and Ahmad Hassan Dani "History of Northern Areas of Pakistan" https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/History_of_Northern_Areas_of_Pakistan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.136.73 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image File:100px-Pk-punj.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit History reorganization

[edit]

I'd like to propose to incorporate following too specific section, removed from Gilgit History, to e.g. Kashmir Conflict and on Major Brown's participation into e.g. (yet non-existant] Gilgit Scouts article, or simply left out.

On 4 November 1947, Brown raised the new Pakistani flag in the Scouts’ lines, and by the third week of November a Political Agent from Pakistan had established himself at Gilgit. Brown had engineered Gilgit and its adjoining states to first secede from J&K, and, after some talk of being independent, had promptly acceded to Pakistan. His commander in Peshawar, a Col. Bacon, as well as Col. Iskander Mirza, Defence Secretary in the new Pakistan and later to lead the first military coup détat and become President of Pakistan, were pleased enough. In July 1948, Brown was awarded an MBE (Military) and the British Governor of the NWFP got him a civilian job with ICI~ which however sent him to Calcutta, where he came to be attacked and left for dead on the streets by Sikhs avenging the Bunji massacre. Brown survived, returned to England, started a riding school, and died in 1984. In March 1994, Pakistan awarded his widow the Sitara-I-Pakistan in recognition of his coup détat. Gilgit’s ordinary people had not participated in Brown’s coup which carried their fortunes into the new Pakistan, and to this day appear to remain without legislative representation. It was merely assumed that since they were mostly Muslim in number they would wish to be part of Pakistan ~ which also became Liaquat Ali Khan’s assumption about J&K State as a whole in his 1950 statements in North America. What the Gilgit case demonstrates is that J&K State’s descent into a legal condition of ownerless anarchy open to “Military Decision” had begun even before the Pakistani invasion of 22 October 1947 (viz. “Solving Kashmir”, The Statesman, 1-3 December 2005). Also, whatever else the British said or did with respect to J & K, they were closely allied to the new Pakistan on the matter of Gilgit.”

Thanks, Rayshade (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data

[edit]

Aye, just wanted to ask opinions—which has probably been discussed elsewhere at length—on different climate data presentations. The Template:Infobox weather seems to be easier to typeset into page, but I do prefer the more visual Template:Climate chart. What's the latest consensus on these? Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online source problem

[edit]

Every other (different) online source cited seems to have the same "|url=http://www.the-south-asian.com/aug2004/Gilgit_manuscript.htm" in the citation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 02:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit Language Scripts

[edit]

Several presumably Indian editors repeatedly place Hindi script on the page. Gilgit is part of Pakistani-Administered Kashmir, which does not recognize Hindi as an official language. The same is even true in Indian-Administered Kashmir: The only recognized languages are Urdu and Kashmiri. Hindi is not an official language in either Kashmir - its use is merely political and should not be allowed. Further, even within India, Hindi script is not used in the names of towns like Chennai (where Tamil is only used as it is the language of Tamil Nadu), or Calcutta (where only Bengali is used). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willard84 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gilgit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

172.98.154.223, Regarding this change to numbers, can you specify which source you are talking about, and provide a quote? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India or Pakistan?

[edit]

The Lead of this article states India, but Gilgit-Baltistan more correctly identifies the region as disputed, administered by Pakistan. "India maintains that Gilgit-Baltistan is a part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that is 'an integral part of the country.'" However, from Government of Gilgit-Baltistan "While administratively controlled by Pakistan since 1947, Gilgit-Baltistan has not yet been formally integrated into the Pakistani federation state and does not participate in constitutional political affairs. On 29 August 2009, the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009 was passed by the Government of Pakistan and later signed by the President. The order granted self-rule to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, by creating, among other things, an elected Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly and a Gilgit-Baltistan Council. Gilgit-Baltistan thus gained de facto province-like status without constitutionally becoming part of Pakistan." Could someone familiar with the situation resolve this? David notMD (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note about my reversion: I made a Huggle rollback to this page after reading an edit summary that said "We have written about what the truth is about Gilgit OK???", which seemed ungrammatical, and like an agenda pushing edit. The editor in question had made few edits, and since it was an India/Pakistan article I assumed that it was someone with an agenda who was trolling. In hindsight, I see that the editor was trying to revert a vandal or actually correct the article, and that their poor edit summary led me to incorrectly believe they were being unconstructive. Edit: However their edit was still not a neutral one, as they simply said "Pakistan" instead of "India", which doesn't accurately capture the complexities of the issue.
Upon closer examination it becomes clear that the territory is not in fact Indian, but its also not strictly Pakistani either. As part of the Kashmir, it is disputed, and both states claim that it is theirs. On a day to day basis, Pakistan administers its government, but it is not officially integrated into either India or Pakistan. I think the wording in the lead of Gilgit-Baltistan has a good compromise wording in territory administered by Pakistan, and Pakistani administered Kashmir. I think the lead needs to clearly lay out the fact that it is in the disputed Kashmir region, and the complexities that entails. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we leave the sleeping dogs lie. There is no correct way to do this, because you can find sources that say all kinds of things. The legal position is that the entire Kashmir region is an "integral part" of India as per the Indian constitution, whereas none of it is part of Pakistan as per the Constitution of Pakistan. (Let us not go into why that is.) By that token "territory administered by Pakistan" would be correct. However, if you do that, you will find that all pro-Pakistan editors will want to do the same thing to the Indian administered portions, and the pro-India editors will reject them, and you will end up spending your life mediating between the two. As per the 1972 Simla agreement, the two countries have accepted to let each other administer the territories under their control without prejudice to their stated positions. Under its strength, there is no great harm in stating that the respective regions are parts of the respective countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very matured and wise opinion indeed. I agree with your analysis. --Jaydayal (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties on Kashmir

[edit]

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. We need to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

[edit]

Gigit should show under indian territory because it is part of india not part of Pakistan. AnkyTheIndian (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I am sure Pakistan would disagree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly dude do you want to lose 220.9 million Wikipedia Viewers? SteelerFan1933 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Trakhan dynasty into Gilgit and History of Gilgit-Baltistan

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should Trakhan dynasty be merged into Gilgit and History of Gilgit-Baltistan? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: Not a single WP:HISTRS excluding Dani (for Vohra, see the quote below; the rest are gazetteers or travelogues from British Raj era) bothers to spend more than a single paragraph on the subject. Fails WP:GNG which demands significant coverage from multiple sources. As evident from this discussion, Dani is simply retelling Gilgit traditions. To maintain a page on a legendary dynasty based on a single source is not compliant with our policies.
    We can write about 2 or 3 decent paragraphs noting the outlines of the legend coupled with the total lack of hard historical evidence and commit a merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that Uanfala has redirected the article as late as March 2018 before you restored the relevant section of the article but without any sig. improvement.
    Before I raised issue with your writing, the article pretended as if it was a real dynasty! This fits into a longstanding pattern of creating dubious articles on kings based on one/two sources (w/o reading them) and a variety of misc. edits that barely makes sense.
    I have never said that the history is an empty void. Otherwise, I won't have proposed write about 2 or 3 decent paragraphs noting the outlines of the legend coupled with the total lack of hard historical evidence, and merge to the articles. I don't understand your fascination to have a page on every damn king and dynasty mentioned by a couple of academics. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate your contributions in these areas esp. concerning numismatics and maps. But not the insistence to maintain standalone articles for those which turn out to be quite minor with few sources, esp. when you fail to properly consult the sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Acc. to Recent Research on Ladakh 4 & 5: Proceedings of the Fourth and Fifth International Colloquia on Ladakh (cited by you), Shri Badat belonged to 11th-12th century. Whereas your article impress upon a reader that he belonged to 8th-9th century. Interestingly but unsurprisingly, Vohra never, for once, speaks of any "Trakhan Dynasty" and the name of the chapter is "Early History of Ladakh: Mythic Lore and Fabulation".
Let's check his conclusion (p. 231):

Recent discoveries in the northern areas of Pakistan of inscription mentioning the Patola Shahi rulers from the 6th century onwards, with an interval of two centuries, until the 12th century have established a reasonably concrete chronology (v.Hinüber 1986; Jettmar 1993). I had attempted to catalogue the rulers in relative chronology in 1985 in a paper delivered at the 4th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (Vohra 1988:537-539,f.n.24).

This however raises the question of the reliability of the folklore and the conjectural dating for the rulers mentioned therein. An attempt in this direction for the early period has been attempted by Prof. Dani based upon Shah Rais Khan's History of Gilgit (Dani 1987:116). At the present state of our knowledge there seem to be NO CONVINCING GROUND for equating the rulers of the inscriptions with those of the folk legends.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is only related to the specific question of the matching of inscriptions with the rulers described in traditional histories (i.e; the rulers of traditional histories do not appear in inscriptions... but we already knew that). I think you should use this time and effort to enrich the article with these views and analysis. We should also report what these inscriptions describe. I'm happy with any comment balancing the reconstruction of Ahmad Hasan Dani, not an insignificant scholar, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia. UNESCO. 1 January 1998. ISBN 978-92-3-103467-1.. We do not usually blank an article simply because there are competing views... we balance it and enrich it, and you are very welcome to do so. Sorry, I have to go. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why we will discuss Vohra's reconstruction of Gilgit history (based on inscriptions etc.) under an article titled "Trakhan Dynasty"? What is the relevance? Why not at History of Gilgit-Baltistan? As a mark of respect for the efforts and contributions of other editors [you], do you prefer that I rename the page to Medieval History of Gilgit-Baltistan?
Dani had to elaborate on a legend since he did not have anything to work upon but was extensively funded by the Govt. to write a history of the region (check preface of his '91 work). Vohra has since worked in the area and his findings don't (expectedly) corroborate with Dani by much. That's the summary.
Please feel free to have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just changed "shall" to "should", as it is a more common way of phrasing this sort of question. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed by India

[edit]

If Sevastopol can be shown to be claimed by Ukraine, why can we not show Gilgit is claimed by India? Sng Pal (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that Sevastopol was actually part of Ukraine before Russian Occupation and is still de jure part of it(de facto russian for 9 years). I don't know if Gilgit is de jure Indian and was occupied by Pakistan in recent years.PAper GOL (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilgit&oldid=1216175688"