This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1947 Poonch rebellion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article currently is out of sync with the section Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Rebellion in Poonch, which contains scholarly coverage with disparate views. The sources used here are not reliable for historical information. Neither do they cover all view points. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"A further factor motivating Poonchis was the creation of Pakistan and the Maharaja’s reaction to their support for it. The transfer of British power to the new dominions of India and Pakistan, coupled with Hari Singh’s vacillation on the accession, inspired much interest, even fervour, among the people of J&K. In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan." [1] This is there in the book also. Check for yourself. -- Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan" is fine. That is the only thing that is factual. The rest is Snedden's POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And how is Ved Bhasin an unreliable source ?! -- Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Regarding Patiala troops, multiple sources say that one battalion (which could be anywhere between 300 to 800 soldiers) of Patiala troops was in Kashmir. When Alastair Lamb raised a stink about in the 1990s, I remember researching into it (in a high-quality library that I had access to), and finding that these forces were requested by Hari Singh. His own troops were scattered around the border and none were left to guard Srinagar, hence he asked Patiala for help. Hari Singh faulted his former Army Chief Henry Lawrence Scott for doing the "scattering" and complained about it in multiple places. I was personally convinced about it at that time and concluding that Lamb was wrong. Lamb claims that it was done at New Delhi's behest.
There was a separate episode where I found an involvement of Vallabhbhai Patel (writing from memory). After Pakistan imposed a blockade, Hari Singh had requested arms supplies from India. India agreed to send them, and orders were issued. But the British general (either Lockhart or Bucher) didn't do it, claiming some difficulty or the other. Hari Singh appealed again, and Nehru quizzed why the arms weren't sent. Patel said there were "all sorts of difficulties" in doing it, [1] and it was at this point that he asked Patiala to send arms supplies that Kashmir needed. This was all above board, and the letters document it. However, there was nothing about sending troops in the documentation.
Now that you have mentioned it, I have done a search, found this from Shubh Mathur: [2]
An often overlooked fact is that there were aleady Indian troops on the ground in Jammu and Kashmir well before the controversial date of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. The state of Patiala had acceded to India in August 1947 and by September, the former Maharaja of Patiala's troops, now de jure Indian forces, were helping Hari Singh put down the armed rebellion in Poonch (Bose 2005; Schofield 2010).
I have checked Bose 2005 and there is no mention of Patiala troops. I have also checked all the books of Bose, thinking he might have gotten the details wrong. No Patiala anywhere. Schofield has only reference to Patiala troops, which says:
Over the next two days they [tribal forces] took Garhi and Chinari. Their main column proceeded on towards Uri, where according to their 'commander' Khurshid Anwar, they encountered 'the first Sikh Regiment of Patiala State'.[17] No one has confirmed when the Patiala state forces arrived, but Alastair Lamb considers the presence of such 'exotic forces' as a covert operation, which, since the Maharaja of Patiala's accession to India, meant they were in fact forces which came under the control of the Indian Union.[18]
So the Patiala troops were in the Kashmir Valley, not in Poonch. So, Shubh Mathur gets it wrong again.
But, re-read the Schofield paragraph again, and the propaganda becomes clear. Khurshid Anwar, the head of the Muslim League National Guard was commanding a 5000-strong Pakistani tribal force invading Kashmir. So this is an attempt to deflect attention from him. Why not claim that the Maharaja already had Indian forces on his soil? Then it becomes all reasonable to have sent Pakistani forces to counter them. Nice try.
By the way, the princely state forces were not under Indian command at that time. Yes, the states had ceded defence and external affairs to India. So, legally, they needed India's permission to send their troops elsewhere. And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
References
References
The info about Poonchis buying guns from NWFP is sourced to Sardar Ibrahim in Snedden's book. He doesn't say how many guns they were able to buy. When Sardar Ibrahim met Akbar Khan, he asked for 500 guns. [1] So, reason dictates that the number of guns he was able to obtain from NWFP must have been significantly smaller (perhaps 100, perhaps 50). 500 was a big number of Ibrahim. He claimed that, if only they could get 500 guns, they could overthrow the Maharja's government. Akbar Khan instead gave him 4,000 guns. These facts are not mentioned in Snedden's book. Either biased or inadequate research. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please add the complete information required regarding 'firearms' in the article. Add/refine the necessary content and see that all the tags (neutrality, systemic bias, weasel words etc) get resolved. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
@ Vamsee614: Regarding this edit, I don't see it clearly established anywhere about what arms the Poonchis obtained from NWFP and when. Moreover, the people that claim this are also the ones who are suppressing the information that Pakistan supplied arms to the rebels. So, if this is to stay, we need better sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, exactly. And I don't think those 'arms' accounts were taken from Symonds, please think once again. All of them appear to have come from Sardar itself, in all sources. Anyhow it doesn't matter much. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 11:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: There is this POV which was probably first put forward by our Snedden, which says that after Jammu massacres started, they intensified the Poonch rebellion. It is there in Kashmir conflict article also, as written by you:
A large number of Muslims were killed. Huge number of Muslims have fled to West Pakistan, some of whom made their way to the western districts of Poonch and Mirpur, which were undergoing rebellion. Many of these Muslims believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu and instigated the Muslims in West Pakistan to join the uprising in Poonch and help in the formation of the Azad Kashmir government.[50](Snedden:Unwritten History; pp 48-57)
PS:- I have no access to that book right now. Don't you think we should add this content in this article somewhere, just with some appropriate length? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
While inter-religious violence in Jammu Province affected all communities in 1947, this section largely, but not totally, focuses on a possible 'massacre' of Muslims in Jammu's four eastern, Hindu-majority districts. This event was important: it inspired Jammu Muslims to defend themselves and to form the Azad Kashmir movement in the 'liberated' Muslim-majority areas of western Jammu Province.
Good thinking. I found some more detail in the following section. (p.58)
One major reason for the formation of the Azad Kashmir movement was fear. As noted, from the start of anti-Muslim violence in Jammu province, some Muslims believed that Maharaja Hari Singh had a plan to 'take quick and strong action, [and] liquidate the whole Moslem population by massacring large numbers and pushing out the rest into Pakistan'. Hari Singh first planned to deal with the '100,000 ex-servicemen' living in areas close to Pakistan, then he would 'turn [his attention] to the rest of the Moslem population' whom, Muslims believed, he intended to massacre.[161: Kashmir's Fight for Freedom, Azad Kashmir Government, p.2] The ruler would then allow the 'surplus Sikh' population from West Punjab to replace the Muslims.[162: Hafizullah, Towards Azad Kashmir, pp.55, 83]
And, it goes on like this. There is nothing new here. It is the same paranoia we have seen in Sardar Ibrahim's book (and he very likely provided the input into these AJK documents as well). There is nothing here about the "four eastern, Hindu-majority districts" of the Jammu province. It seems that Snedden just made up that part of his theory.
There is also some interesting stuff that Shams Rehman has uncovered, by digging through Yusuf Saraf's book. There were two D-days:
He connects the two provisional governments of AJK with these events. The first one was launched to provide cover for the Poonch Rebellion, and the second one to cover for the tribal invasion. Snedden seems clueless about these things, even though he cites Saraf's book. Here is something quite striking:
For example [of the change from pro-independence to pro-Pakistan], on 21st August 1947 some workers of Muslim Conference met at Eidgah, Mohallah Wanganpura [in
Jammu citySrinagar] and formed an underground war council which issued a pamphlet by the title of declaration of war. (Saraf, p: 561).
There is also this:
After the celebrations of Pakistan Day in Baramulla, Mr Saraf met Choudhary Hamidullah who according to Saraf told him that “sympathetic people in Frontier and Punjab should create trouble on the State borders adjacent to their areas to attract the Dogra army in bulk so that the Poonch ex-servicemen get an opportunity of advancing upon Srinagar.” (p:561).
"Pakistan Day" must be 14 August. So, apparently, Hamidullah was also part of the conspiracy, not just Sardar Ibrahim. Hamidullah also gave Yusuf Saraf a letter to be delivered to Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, asking the latter to organise attacks along the border so that the Poonchis could focus on taking Srinagar. Qayyum Khan said that it was a "foolish" idea and asked Hamidulalh to come in person to discuss it properly! You are welcome to guess why it was "foolish".
Given all this, can we understand why the Maharaja did what he did? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Two recent converts to the League, Firoz Khan Noon and Abdul Qayyum Khan of the NWFP, publicly ‘advocated that Muslims should arm for civil war’ and ‘prepare…to fight the Hindus’ if they resorted to violence. In Gujrat, Noon ‘urged every Muslim boy to buy a sword and keep it with him’. Even Daultana was heard making intemperate speeches, but then thought it better to stress restraint on the grounds that if Muslims ‘disturbed the peace they would only be harming the cause of Pakistan’.[38]
If we say the Maharaja went "mad", he apparently didn't go mad on Kashmiri Muslims, but only the Jammu Muslims.- that doesn't make him any less mad. It just makes him more of a political fanatic rather than communal fanatic. Nothing can change that he favoured the killings of tens of thousands of innocents. My position/prejudice on him does not alter, not a bit.
I want to remove the 'disputed neutrality' and 'systemic bias' tags to this article at this stage. So I request any editor to review the whole article and suggest modifications if any, to resolve the neutrality issues. Thank you. Vamsee614 ( talk) 13:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Please comment on this. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 13:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
References
It turns out that that content was actually add by me in the Azad Kashmir page when I was still a newbie editor. It suffers from close paraphrasing as well as undue admiration fro Sumantra Bose. Unfortunately, the scholarly consensus is against Bose. Snedden expresses various doubts about the first provisional government, and the Kashmiri activists have even more serious misgivings. [1] Neither is it clear that this government had anything to do with the Poonch Rebellion, except for the fact Sardar Ibrahim was chosen as the prime minister (and he didn't use a pseudonym). It looks like Ibrahim and Gilkar were the only enthusiasts and the others were lukewarm. I think it is best to mention these two, and leave the rest of the "chieftains" alone. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I got it. "Following this victory, the pro-Pakistan rebels of the western districts of Muzaffarabad, Poonch and Mirpur proclaimed a provisional Azad Jammu and Kashmir government in Rawalpindi on October 3, 1947." - Just tell me whether this line should be kept or removed? — Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The first and last paras in the 'Preparations for an armed revolt' section - Mian Iftikharuddin going to Kashmir, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan's approval of plans - I think all this is additional information (not Akbar Khan's guns). They are all connected to tribal invasion and First Kashmir War, but I'm not sure if they are directly related to the Poonch rebellion. The readers can be aware of those parallel occurrences for a broader idea of what was happening, but I feel they should better be added as footnotes in the article, rather than directly in the content. Vamsee614 ( talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I have studied the sources available and known to me (Shuja Nawaz, Raghavan and Bhattacharya) and they matched with the content of the article. I am not aware of this three ponged attack and the sources that said about it. So I thought it is adequate. And we shall better limit the scope of this article, up to the phase of the rebellion - when first Azad Kashmir government was formed and Hari Singh lost control over Poonch and the surrounding regions. The later stages, we shall brief under aftermath. They can be covered in detail in First Kashmir War article. Regarding 30,000 non Muslim killings near Kotli and Rajouri, I read that in two Indian military sources while studying about Jammu massacres and was shocked to see that figure. I searched but didn't come across neutral sources which observed the same. If you know a very reliable source that states a similar figure, please tell me because I have been longing to confirm this report. Thank you. :-) Vamsee614 ( talk) 17:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
1) When the content of the article about a specific topic is in sync and consistent with another article of a broader subject, it does not qualify as a POV FORK. If there is a problem in this regard, you may kindly point it out.
2) By 'limiting the scope', I meant keeping the main focus. See the timeline which the article discusses in its present stage. August-September-October, i.e., from the stage when "first sign of trouble broke out in Poonch" to Hari Singh losing his control over a major part of the Poonch region. And you yourself have framed and written the subheadings of that 'stages of revolt' section. You approved it too. So what new/faulty have I proposed?
3) I know, this argument of drawing lines b/w the war and the rebellion is pointless and endless. And it is not the issue. But my goal in creating this article was to focus and elaborate on the initial stages of the rebellion/war in Poonch, till Hari Singh acceded to India, and before India entered into the picture in Poonch (as the article is at present). Of course, the rebellion had support from Pakistan and was joined by Pakistani groups, but still it was a rebellion, with local support, against the existing establishment. You also stated that, by Oct 24th, rebels essentially controlled the region. This can be seen as a significant breakpoint (I'm not saying 'an endpoint'. It is definitely not.) due to a major transition in rebellion/war later. In the next stages, India and Pakistan directly fought against each other through out the J&K border, and of course, the rebels were fighting on the Pakistan side. But it is more of a war than a rebellion. You may call this WP OR, or state any other Wiki policy that I'm currently not aware of, I won't deny to that. And I won't defend that. However you are a very senior editor, and if you wish to expand about the happenings in Poonch during the whole war timeline in the article, I'm nobody to object. But please remember that the overall content of the article becomes vague with no meaningful difference from that of First Kashmir War, and the article's objective becomes trivial and gets diluted. With that, I'm leaving it to your good wisdom. Thank you. Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We have been countering it and adding all accounts that say facts which contest Snedden's POV. We had already mentioned Sardar Ibrahim meeting Akbar Khan and all other Pakistani involvement aspects in detail. And I'm very glad that you said, you'll further improvise it. Also I was not so particular about the name, bro. As I saw there was already an article with the name Poonch Uprising, I simply used this different name. Anyways, as I have said, I'll believe that you'll proceed with your good sense, and it will make this article better. Vamsee614 ( talk) 10:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Vamsee614: Please add a quotation from your source, because it isn't visible to me. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On Iftikharuddin's return from Srinagar to Murree, Khan gave him copies of his plan titled 'Armed Revolt inside Kashmir'. It was based on the availability of the rifles: 2,800 of the rifles would be allotted for taking on the Maharaja's 9,000 strong army. Khan's calculation was that 2,000 Muslims in the army would anyway join the revolt and the rest, spread out in penny packets, could be overwhelmed by attrition.
The Maharaja's Army was said to be about 9,000 strong of which 2,000 or so Muslims could be expected to remain comparatively passive or even to desert if all went well. The remaining 7,000 were believed to be widely scattered and could be overcome by the Kashmiri people little by little.
References
@ Kautilya3: Sardar might not have organised the whole force. But according to Sardar, the so-called 'Azad Army' which was formed (perhaps from many ways) amounted in around 50,000 men. And it is considerably observed in RS.
According to Sardar Ibrahim, during September 1947, some 50,000 men were organised into a people’s militia variously known as the ‘Azad Army’, ‘Azad Forces’ or ‘Azad Kashmir Regular Forces’. This locally-officered volunteer ‘army’ comprised 90 per cent ex-servicemen, except in Bagh, where the percentage was lower.
—Snedden (pg 44)
In June 1947 they (Poonchis) commenced a 'no-tax' campaign that rapidly escalated, courtesy of some heavy-handed reprisals by the darbär's police, into a widespread popular insurgency, spearheaded by a well-armed guerrilla force of Indian Army veterans led by local zamindar Sardar Qayyum Khan. This so-called Azad Army would eventually number in excess of 50,000. [1]
Why should we entirely omit this account? — Vamsee614 ( talk) 08:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well fine, I'll go with you. But lastly, I would like to point that we didn't crosscheck the number and we don't have any source that counters that claim. No source has given another number (anything apart from 50,000) to say that the present one is wrong. We are only going by the assumption that 'Sardar Ibrahim has lied.' On a side note, did you see how Snedden(pg 44) tried his best to establish that all this was purely an indigenous affair till its end? :-D
According to Sardar Ibrahim, during September 1947, some 50,000 men were organised into a people’s militia variously known as the ‘Azad Army’, ‘Azad Forces’ or ‘Azad Kashmir Regular Forces’. This locally-officered volunteer ‘army’ comprised 90 per cent ex-servicemen, except in Bagh, where the percentage was lower. A ‘very small percentage of Pakistani volunteers’ fought with them, as may have twelve women. According to the Azad Kashmir Defence Minister, Colonel Ali Ahmad Shah (a former captain in the J&K State Force), the ‘Azad Forces had been recruited locally or had risen spontaneously’. They comprised ‘seasoned troops’ with experience fighting in both world wars and the serious ‘Waziristan Operations’ (1920-21).
— Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It is uncertain if the Pakistanis’ assistance was sanctioned at senior levels.
Funny! The Colonel himself had written a book about it in 1975, and clearly described all the plans, mentioning names & numbers (4,000 guns and all). — Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Nehru says:
At that time [of the UNCIP resolutions, January 1948] our information was that Pakistan forces numbered about 50,000 including 27,000 'Azad' forces, 20,000 Pakistan regular army and 3,000 Scouts. [2]
So you have a contradiction now. Subsequently, Nehru says that the Azad Forces were trained and reequipped to take up the positions of the Pakistan Army. Ayub Khan says that, when he took over at the end of 1949, Azad forces numbered 50,000. [3]. So, apparently, the Azad Forces were expanded after the cease-fire. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Vamsee614: I am beginning to review all the edits you have made in March, as I didn't have time to do so earlier. The Background section is too long and is a bit meandering. There is also too much content taken from Rakesh Ankit's magazine article, which is not corroborated by other sources, and in some instances seems wrong. For example, Ankit claims that the Raja of Poonch had a direct relationship with the Viceroy of India, which is contradicted by the extensive discussion of Snedden in Appendix I. If the INC and NC had supported the Poonchis' demand to merge with Punjab, we need corroboration from other sources with citations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comment: Well sourced and relevant content was removed. In an article exclusively on Poonch affair, a bit detailed discussion is not unnecessary
, relevance needs to be determined by what information has bearing on the main subject, which is the Poonch rebellion. There is a separate article on
Poonch jagir, where you can put any other information that is of importance to it. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The campaign was also supported by Indian National Congress and Sheikh Abdullah's Jammu & Kashmir National Conference during 1937-47.
As a result, scholar Rakesh Ankit says, the Poonchis had pursued employment in the British Indian Army.
In June 1947, the Poonchis launched a ‘no tax’ campaign. [1]
Thousands of rebels were organised into a people's militia known as the 'Azad Army'. [2]
References
I am going to get rid of the footnote [b] that implies obliquely that the NC and Congress supported the Poonchi demand to merge into Punjab. I think Rakesh Ankit's discussion is not at all clear and there is plenty of evidence against such an implication.
Naya Kashmir was divided into two parts—the Constitution of the State and the National Economic Plan. The proposed constitution of the state would grant a single citizenship to all inhabitants of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and the Frontier Regions, including the Poonch and Chenani ilaqas (regions). [2]
Getting rid of the dual administration is exactly what the Maharaja did in 1940, but that got him nothing but trouble. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Based on Ankit, the article says: Despite being a 90% Muslim populated region, most of the administrative and police staff under the Raja of Poonch were Hindus and this was said to be a source of discontent among Poonchis.
However, we know that Khan Muhammad Khan was appointed the Police inspector of Poonch and later nominated to the Praja Sabha. While we have no idea how many other Muslims might have been employed by the state, we do know that on 30 July 1940, a "huge gathering" of "Poonch Public" passed a resolution where they expressed "profound sorrow" that their "beloved Raja" was being treated as a jagirdar. [1] The Maharaja was apparently unpopular in Poonch, but not the Raja of Poonch.
Once again, I think this is rather too sweeping a statement to take from a magazine article.-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Currently there is this sentence in the August 1947 section: Poonchis purchased some weapons from the neighbouring NWFP arms bazaars.[1]
, sourced to India-seminar. I have finally located the corresponding info from Snedden's book (p.44) where it is said:
They started to rearms themselves in August, chiefly by purchasing weapons from NWFP arms bazaars.[57: Ibrahim Khan, The Kashmir Saga, p.69-70]
He says specifically that this happened in August. However, The Kashmir Saga p.69-70 has nothing about this. I have however located something close on p.60:
In the villages, in August 1947, some leading men, particularly ex-Serviceman, began to collect money to buy arms from tribesmen of the former Frontier Province.
This only states the intent to buy arms from the Frontier, not the act. So we can't be sure that arms were purchased in August. However, we have corroboration from State sources that it happened in September. So I will move this sentence to the September 1947 section. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Drivers refused to use the Srinagar–Rawalpindi road because of reports of disturbances and attacks by raiders.
in note: The state government had dispatched a large number of state troops to Kohala and Ramkot on the Domel Abbotabad road to ensure that the armed raiders did not cross the border.
@
Kautilya3: In the new section, I think, it is not clear as to who the raiders were (from where they were coming & who sent them?) and when they were attacking? The previous line in the para says The Pir of Manki Sharif was also reported to have sent agents provocateurs to frontier districts of Kashmir to prepare their Muslims for a 'holy crusade'
. So "agents provocateurs" were planned and sent to prepare armed raiders in border districts of Kashmir. Then, the state had dispatched troops to ensure which raiders did not cross the border, when the raiders were supposed to be made inside the border?
And I think, the content of this section also belongs in the Jammu massacres page, because of the Hindu & Sikh rufugees stuff. What do you say? — Tyler Durden ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
attacks by raidersto simply "raids". The original sentence from Jha is:
Motor drivers are refusing to use the Srinagar-Rawalpindi road because of reports of raiders burning lorries and destroying bridges and culverts.
The Pir of Manki Sharif was also reported to have sent agents provocateurs to frontier districts of Kashmir to prepare their Muslims for a 'holy crusade'. Kashmir responded by sealing the border with the provinces, and sending more troops to the border areas. The stream of Hindu and Sikh refugees coming from the Rawalpindi and Hazara districts also spread unease in the State. Is the paragraph trying to say that the communal tensions caused due to the arrival of refugees, and the state's militarisation of the region were some of the factors that drove the Muslims of Poonch and Mirpur districts to a rebellion? If that is so, I think it should be made somewhat more clear. Please read it from the perspective of an average Wikipedia reader. --- Tyler Durden ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the state's Hindus and Sikhs began to see Pakistan as a threat and decided that any local Muslims that were suspected of collaborating with Pakistan were to be eliminated.- This was a background factor for the Jammu massacres, right? Or for the Poonch rebellion also?
Danish.mehraj26, KA$HMIR, JosephusOfJerusalem: Would you care to explain what WP:COPYVIO you have found in this article? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Astore Malik you have added this content:
Together with Muslims from Bagh and Mirpur it was the Sudhans of Poonch who were at the heart of this campaign. [1]
References
- ^ Snedden, Christopher. Kashmir - The Untold Story. HarperCollins India. pp. 1937–1938. ISBN 9789350298985.
Those page numbers don't make sense. The book has only 435 pages. If you don't have the actual page numbers as in the published book, please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an claiming that Ibrahim Khan held a meeting of a "general assembly" at his residence in July 1947. I know that there are claims in this regard in Azad Kashmir. But they are squarely contradicted by the acting General Secretary of Muslim Conference, Ishaque Qureshi:
Qureshi says that the much trumpeted meeting of the MC general council which allegedly decided to accede to Pakistan, and on which Pakistan's case for Kashmir rested at that time, had never taken place. “All the leaders were in jail and we were the only ones active outside..." [1]
The scholars that scoured through Dawn and Pakistan Times of that period found no news of the supposed general council meeting. So this is entirely dubious. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
It’s important to add that the rebellion was a victory for the rebels in the infobox since the rebellion had succeeded in freeing the region from the maharajas rule and establishing Azad Kashmir. Ukiyology1 ( talk) 18:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1947 Poonch rebellion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article currently is out of sync with the section Indo-Pakistani War of 1947#Rebellion in Poonch, which contains scholarly coverage with disparate views. The sources used here are not reliable for historical information. Neither do they cover all view points. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"A further factor motivating Poonchis was the creation of Pakistan and the Maharaja’s reaction to their support for it. The transfer of British power to the new dominions of India and Pakistan, coupled with Hari Singh’s vacillation on the accession, inspired much interest, even fervour, among the people of J&K. In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan." [1] This is there in the book also. Check for yourself. -- Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
In Poonch, many people were already identifying themselves with Pakistan" is fine. That is the only thing that is factual. The rest is Snedden's POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 05:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
And how is Ved Bhasin an unreliable source ?! -- Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Regarding Patiala troops, multiple sources say that one battalion (which could be anywhere between 300 to 800 soldiers) of Patiala troops was in Kashmir. When Alastair Lamb raised a stink about in the 1990s, I remember researching into it (in a high-quality library that I had access to), and finding that these forces were requested by Hari Singh. His own troops were scattered around the border and none were left to guard Srinagar, hence he asked Patiala for help. Hari Singh faulted his former Army Chief Henry Lawrence Scott for doing the "scattering" and complained about it in multiple places. I was personally convinced about it at that time and concluding that Lamb was wrong. Lamb claims that it was done at New Delhi's behest.
There was a separate episode where I found an involvement of Vallabhbhai Patel (writing from memory). After Pakistan imposed a blockade, Hari Singh had requested arms supplies from India. India agreed to send them, and orders were issued. But the British general (either Lockhart or Bucher) didn't do it, claiming some difficulty or the other. Hari Singh appealed again, and Nehru quizzed why the arms weren't sent. Patel said there were "all sorts of difficulties" in doing it, [1] and it was at this point that he asked Patiala to send arms supplies that Kashmir needed. This was all above board, and the letters document it. However, there was nothing about sending troops in the documentation.
Now that you have mentioned it, I have done a search, found this from Shubh Mathur: [2]
An often overlooked fact is that there were aleady Indian troops on the ground in Jammu and Kashmir well before the controversial date of the signing of the Instrument of Accession. The state of Patiala had acceded to India in August 1947 and by September, the former Maharaja of Patiala's troops, now de jure Indian forces, were helping Hari Singh put down the armed rebellion in Poonch (Bose 2005; Schofield 2010).
I have checked Bose 2005 and there is no mention of Patiala troops. I have also checked all the books of Bose, thinking he might have gotten the details wrong. No Patiala anywhere. Schofield has only reference to Patiala troops, which says:
Over the next two days they [tribal forces] took Garhi and Chinari. Their main column proceeded on towards Uri, where according to their 'commander' Khurshid Anwar, they encountered 'the first Sikh Regiment of Patiala State'.[17] No one has confirmed when the Patiala state forces arrived, but Alastair Lamb considers the presence of such 'exotic forces' as a covert operation, which, since the Maharaja of Patiala's accession to India, meant they were in fact forces which came under the control of the Indian Union.[18]
So the Patiala troops were in the Kashmir Valley, not in Poonch. So, Shubh Mathur gets it wrong again.
But, re-read the Schofield paragraph again, and the propaganda becomes clear. Khurshid Anwar, the head of the Muslim League National Guard was commanding a 5000-strong Pakistani tribal force invading Kashmir. So this is an attempt to deflect attention from him. Why not claim that the Maharaja already had Indian forces on his soil? Then it becomes all reasonable to have sent Pakistani forces to counter them. Nice try.
By the way, the princely state forces were not under Indian command at that time. Yes, the states had ceded defence and external affairs to India. So, legally, they needed India's permission to send their troops elsewhere. And, I suppose one could fault India for failing to enforce its legal obligations. But this is nothing like what Pakistan and its British officers had done. The "neutral" "third party" British scholars have no option but to cover for them. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
References
References
The info about Poonchis buying guns from NWFP is sourced to Sardar Ibrahim in Snedden's book. He doesn't say how many guns they were able to buy. When Sardar Ibrahim met Akbar Khan, he asked for 500 guns. [1] So, reason dictates that the number of guns he was able to obtain from NWFP must have been significantly smaller (perhaps 100, perhaps 50). 500 was a big number of Ibrahim. He claimed that, if only they could get 500 guns, they could overthrow the Maharja's government. Akbar Khan instead gave him 4,000 guns. These facts are not mentioned in Snedden's book. Either biased or inadequate research. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Please add the complete information required regarding 'firearms' in the article. Add/refine the necessary content and see that all the tags (neutrality, systemic bias, weasel words etc) get resolved. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 11:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
@ Vamsee614: Regarding this edit, I don't see it clearly established anywhere about what arms the Poonchis obtained from NWFP and when. Moreover, the people that claim this are also the ones who are suppressing the information that Pakistan supplied arms to the rebels. So, if this is to stay, we need better sources. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, exactly. And I don't think those 'arms' accounts were taken from Symonds, please think once again. All of them appear to have come from Sardar itself, in all sources. Anyhow it doesn't matter much. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 11:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: There is this POV which was probably first put forward by our Snedden, which says that after Jammu massacres started, they intensified the Poonch rebellion. It is there in Kashmir conflict article also, as written by you:
A large number of Muslims were killed. Huge number of Muslims have fled to West Pakistan, some of whom made their way to the western districts of Poonch and Mirpur, which were undergoing rebellion. Many of these Muslims believed that the Maharaja ordered the killings in Jammu and instigated the Muslims in West Pakistan to join the uprising in Poonch and help in the formation of the Azad Kashmir government.[50](Snedden:Unwritten History; pp 48-57)
PS:- I have no access to that book right now. Don't you think we should add this content in this article somewhere, just with some appropriate length? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
While inter-religious violence in Jammu Province affected all communities in 1947, this section largely, but not totally, focuses on a possible 'massacre' of Muslims in Jammu's four eastern, Hindu-majority districts. This event was important: it inspired Jammu Muslims to defend themselves and to form the Azad Kashmir movement in the 'liberated' Muslim-majority areas of western Jammu Province.
Good thinking. I found some more detail in the following section. (p.58)
One major reason for the formation of the Azad Kashmir movement was fear. As noted, from the start of anti-Muslim violence in Jammu province, some Muslims believed that Maharaja Hari Singh had a plan to 'take quick and strong action, [and] liquidate the whole Moslem population by massacring large numbers and pushing out the rest into Pakistan'. Hari Singh first planned to deal with the '100,000 ex-servicemen' living in areas close to Pakistan, then he would 'turn [his attention] to the rest of the Moslem population' whom, Muslims believed, he intended to massacre.[161: Kashmir's Fight for Freedom, Azad Kashmir Government, p.2] The ruler would then allow the 'surplus Sikh' population from West Punjab to replace the Muslims.[162: Hafizullah, Towards Azad Kashmir, pp.55, 83]
And, it goes on like this. There is nothing new here. It is the same paranoia we have seen in Sardar Ibrahim's book (and he very likely provided the input into these AJK documents as well). There is nothing here about the "four eastern, Hindu-majority districts" of the Jammu province. It seems that Snedden just made up that part of his theory.
There is also some interesting stuff that Shams Rehman has uncovered, by digging through Yusuf Saraf's book. There were two D-days:
He connects the two provisional governments of AJK with these events. The first one was launched to provide cover for the Poonch Rebellion, and the second one to cover for the tribal invasion. Snedden seems clueless about these things, even though he cites Saraf's book. Here is something quite striking:
For example [of the change from pro-independence to pro-Pakistan], on 21st August 1947 some workers of Muslim Conference met at Eidgah, Mohallah Wanganpura [in
Jammu citySrinagar] and formed an underground war council which issued a pamphlet by the title of declaration of war. (Saraf, p: 561).
There is also this:
After the celebrations of Pakistan Day in Baramulla, Mr Saraf met Choudhary Hamidullah who according to Saraf told him that “sympathetic people in Frontier and Punjab should create trouble on the State borders adjacent to their areas to attract the Dogra army in bulk so that the Poonch ex-servicemen get an opportunity of advancing upon Srinagar.” (p:561).
"Pakistan Day" must be 14 August. So, apparently, Hamidullah was also part of the conspiracy, not just Sardar Ibrahim. Hamidullah also gave Yusuf Saraf a letter to be delivered to Khan Abdul Qayyum Khan, asking the latter to organise attacks along the border so that the Poonchis could focus on taking Srinagar. Qayyum Khan said that it was a "foolish" idea and asked Hamidulalh to come in person to discuss it properly! You are welcome to guess why it was "foolish".
Given all this, can we understand why the Maharaja did what he did? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Two recent converts to the League, Firoz Khan Noon and Abdul Qayyum Khan of the NWFP, publicly ‘advocated that Muslims should arm for civil war’ and ‘prepare…to fight the Hindus’ if they resorted to violence. In Gujrat, Noon ‘urged every Muslim boy to buy a sword and keep it with him’. Even Daultana was heard making intemperate speeches, but then thought it better to stress restraint on the grounds that if Muslims ‘disturbed the peace they would only be harming the cause of Pakistan’.[38]
If we say the Maharaja went "mad", he apparently didn't go mad on Kashmiri Muslims, but only the Jammu Muslims.- that doesn't make him any less mad. It just makes him more of a political fanatic rather than communal fanatic. Nothing can change that he favoured the killings of tens of thousands of innocents. My position/prejudice on him does not alter, not a bit.
I want to remove the 'disputed neutrality' and 'systemic bias' tags to this article at this stage. So I request any editor to review the whole article and suggest modifications if any, to resolve the neutrality issues. Thank you. Vamsee614 ( talk) 13:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: Please comment on this. — Vamsee614 ( talk) 13:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
References
It turns out that that content was actually add by me in the Azad Kashmir page when I was still a newbie editor. It suffers from close paraphrasing as well as undue admiration fro Sumantra Bose. Unfortunately, the scholarly consensus is against Bose. Snedden expresses various doubts about the first provisional government, and the Kashmiri activists have even more serious misgivings. [1] Neither is it clear that this government had anything to do with the Poonch Rebellion, except for the fact Sardar Ibrahim was chosen as the prime minister (and he didn't use a pseudonym). It looks like Ibrahim and Gilkar were the only enthusiasts and the others were lukewarm. I think it is best to mention these two, and leave the rest of the "chieftains" alone. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I got it. "Following this victory, the pro-Pakistan rebels of the western districts of Muzaffarabad, Poonch and Mirpur proclaimed a provisional Azad Jammu and Kashmir government in Rawalpindi on October 3, 1947." - Just tell me whether this line should be kept or removed? — Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The first and last paras in the 'Preparations for an armed revolt' section - Mian Iftikharuddin going to Kashmir, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Liaquat Ali Khan's approval of plans - I think all this is additional information (not Akbar Khan's guns). They are all connected to tribal invasion and First Kashmir War, but I'm not sure if they are directly related to the Poonch rebellion. The readers can be aware of those parallel occurrences for a broader idea of what was happening, but I feel they should better be added as footnotes in the article, rather than directly in the content. Vamsee614 ( talk) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I have studied the sources available and known to me (Shuja Nawaz, Raghavan and Bhattacharya) and they matched with the content of the article. I am not aware of this three ponged attack and the sources that said about it. So I thought it is adequate. And we shall better limit the scope of this article, up to the phase of the rebellion - when first Azad Kashmir government was formed and Hari Singh lost control over Poonch and the surrounding regions. The later stages, we shall brief under aftermath. They can be covered in detail in First Kashmir War article. Regarding 30,000 non Muslim killings near Kotli and Rajouri, I read that in two Indian military sources while studying about Jammu massacres and was shocked to see that figure. I searched but didn't come across neutral sources which observed the same. If you know a very reliable source that states a similar figure, please tell me because I have been longing to confirm this report. Thank you. :-) Vamsee614 ( talk) 17:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
1) When the content of the article about a specific topic is in sync and consistent with another article of a broader subject, it does not qualify as a POV FORK. If there is a problem in this regard, you may kindly point it out.
2) By 'limiting the scope', I meant keeping the main focus. See the timeline which the article discusses in its present stage. August-September-October, i.e., from the stage when "first sign of trouble broke out in Poonch" to Hari Singh losing his control over a major part of the Poonch region. And you yourself have framed and written the subheadings of that 'stages of revolt' section. You approved it too. So what new/faulty have I proposed?
3) I know, this argument of drawing lines b/w the war and the rebellion is pointless and endless. And it is not the issue. But my goal in creating this article was to focus and elaborate on the initial stages of the rebellion/war in Poonch, till Hari Singh acceded to India, and before India entered into the picture in Poonch (as the article is at present). Of course, the rebellion had support from Pakistan and was joined by Pakistani groups, but still it was a rebellion, with local support, against the existing establishment. You also stated that, by Oct 24th, rebels essentially controlled the region. This can be seen as a significant breakpoint (I'm not saying 'an endpoint'. It is definitely not.) due to a major transition in rebellion/war later. In the next stages, India and Pakistan directly fought against each other through out the J&K border, and of course, the rebels were fighting on the Pakistan side. But it is more of a war than a rebellion. You may call this WP OR, or state any other Wiki policy that I'm currently not aware of, I won't deny to that. And I won't defend that. However you are a very senior editor, and if you wish to expand about the happenings in Poonch during the whole war timeline in the article, I'm nobody to object. But please remember that the overall content of the article becomes vague with no meaningful difference from that of First Kashmir War, and the article's objective becomes trivial and gets diluted. With that, I'm leaving it to your good wisdom. Thank you. Vamsee614 ( talk) 21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We have been countering it and adding all accounts that say facts which contest Snedden's POV. We had already mentioned Sardar Ibrahim meeting Akbar Khan and all other Pakistani involvement aspects in detail. And I'm very glad that you said, you'll further improvise it. Also I was not so particular about the name, bro. As I saw there was already an article with the name Poonch Uprising, I simply used this different name. Anyways, as I have said, I'll believe that you'll proceed with your good sense, and it will make this article better. Vamsee614 ( talk) 10:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Vamsee614: Please add a quotation from your source, because it isn't visible to me. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On Iftikharuddin's return from Srinagar to Murree, Khan gave him copies of his plan titled 'Armed Revolt inside Kashmir'. It was based on the availability of the rifles: 2,800 of the rifles would be allotted for taking on the Maharaja's 9,000 strong army. Khan's calculation was that 2,000 Muslims in the army would anyway join the revolt and the rest, spread out in penny packets, could be overwhelmed by attrition.
The Maharaja's Army was said to be about 9,000 strong of which 2,000 or so Muslims could be expected to remain comparatively passive or even to desert if all went well. The remaining 7,000 were believed to be widely scattered and could be overcome by the Kashmiri people little by little.
References
@ Kautilya3: Sardar might not have organised the whole force. But according to Sardar, the so-called 'Azad Army' which was formed (perhaps from many ways) amounted in around 50,000 men. And it is considerably observed in RS.
According to Sardar Ibrahim, during September 1947, some 50,000 men were organised into a people’s militia variously known as the ‘Azad Army’, ‘Azad Forces’ or ‘Azad Kashmir Regular Forces’. This locally-officered volunteer ‘army’ comprised 90 per cent ex-servicemen, except in Bagh, where the percentage was lower.
—Snedden (pg 44)
In June 1947 they (Poonchis) commenced a 'no-tax' campaign that rapidly escalated, courtesy of some heavy-handed reprisals by the darbär's police, into a widespread popular insurgency, spearheaded by a well-armed guerrilla force of Indian Army veterans led by local zamindar Sardar Qayyum Khan. This so-called Azad Army would eventually number in excess of 50,000. [1]
Why should we entirely omit this account? — Vamsee614 ( talk) 08:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well fine, I'll go with you. But lastly, I would like to point that we didn't crosscheck the number and we don't have any source that counters that claim. No source has given another number (anything apart from 50,000) to say that the present one is wrong. We are only going by the assumption that 'Sardar Ibrahim has lied.' On a side note, did you see how Snedden(pg 44) tried his best to establish that all this was purely an indigenous affair till its end? :-D
According to Sardar Ibrahim, during September 1947, some 50,000 men were organised into a people’s militia variously known as the ‘Azad Army’, ‘Azad Forces’ or ‘Azad Kashmir Regular Forces’. This locally-officered volunteer ‘army’ comprised 90 per cent ex-servicemen, except in Bagh, where the percentage was lower. A ‘very small percentage of Pakistani volunteers’ fought with them, as may have twelve women. According to the Azad Kashmir Defence Minister, Colonel Ali Ahmad Shah (a former captain in the J&K State Force), the ‘Azad Forces had been recruited locally or had risen spontaneously’. They comprised ‘seasoned troops’ with experience fighting in both world wars and the serious ‘Waziristan Operations’ (1920-21).
— Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It is uncertain if the Pakistanis’ assistance was sanctioned at senior levels.
Funny! The Colonel himself had written a book about it in 1975, and clearly described all the plans, mentioning names & numbers (4,000 guns and all). — Vamsee614 ( talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Nehru says:
At that time [of the UNCIP resolutions, January 1948] our information was that Pakistan forces numbered about 50,000 including 27,000 'Azad' forces, 20,000 Pakistan regular army and 3,000 Scouts. [2]
So you have a contradiction now. Subsequently, Nehru says that the Azad Forces were trained and reequipped to take up the positions of the Pakistan Army. Ayub Khan says that, when he took over at the end of 1949, Azad forces numbered 50,000. [3]. So, apparently, the Azad Forces were expanded after the cease-fire. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
References
@ Vamsee614: I am beginning to review all the edits you have made in March, as I didn't have time to do so earlier. The Background section is too long and is a bit meandering. There is also too much content taken from Rakesh Ankit's magazine article, which is not corroborated by other sources, and in some instances seems wrong. For example, Ankit claims that the Raja of Poonch had a direct relationship with the Viceroy of India, which is contradicted by the extensive discussion of Snedden in Appendix I. If the INC and NC had supported the Poonchis' demand to merge with Punjab, we need corroboration from other sources with citations. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comment: Well sourced and relevant content was removed. In an article exclusively on Poonch affair, a bit detailed discussion is not unnecessary
, relevance needs to be determined by what information has bearing on the main subject, which is the Poonch rebellion. There is a separate article on
Poonch jagir, where you can put any other information that is of importance to it. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The campaign was also supported by Indian National Congress and Sheikh Abdullah's Jammu & Kashmir National Conference during 1937-47.
As a result, scholar Rakesh Ankit says, the Poonchis had pursued employment in the British Indian Army.
In June 1947, the Poonchis launched a ‘no tax’ campaign. [1]
Thousands of rebels were organised into a people's militia known as the 'Azad Army'. [2]
References
I am going to get rid of the footnote [b] that implies obliquely that the NC and Congress supported the Poonchi demand to merge into Punjab. I think Rakesh Ankit's discussion is not at all clear and there is plenty of evidence against such an implication.
Naya Kashmir was divided into two parts—the Constitution of the State and the National Economic Plan. The proposed constitution of the state would grant a single citizenship to all inhabitants of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and the Frontier Regions, including the Poonch and Chenani ilaqas (regions). [2]
Getting rid of the dual administration is exactly what the Maharaja did in 1940, but that got him nothing but trouble. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Based on Ankit, the article says: Despite being a 90% Muslim populated region, most of the administrative and police staff under the Raja of Poonch were Hindus and this was said to be a source of discontent among Poonchis.
However, we know that Khan Muhammad Khan was appointed the Police inspector of Poonch and later nominated to the Praja Sabha. While we have no idea how many other Muslims might have been employed by the state, we do know that on 30 July 1940, a "huge gathering" of "Poonch Public" passed a resolution where they expressed "profound sorrow" that their "beloved Raja" was being treated as a jagirdar. [1] The Maharaja was apparently unpopular in Poonch, but not the Raja of Poonch.
Once again, I think this is rather too sweeping a statement to take from a magazine article.-- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Currently there is this sentence in the August 1947 section: Poonchis purchased some weapons from the neighbouring NWFP arms bazaars.[1]
, sourced to India-seminar. I have finally located the corresponding info from Snedden's book (p.44) where it is said:
They started to rearms themselves in August, chiefly by purchasing weapons from NWFP arms bazaars.[57: Ibrahim Khan, The Kashmir Saga, p.69-70]
He says specifically that this happened in August. However, The Kashmir Saga p.69-70 has nothing about this. I have however located something close on p.60:
In the villages, in August 1947, some leading men, particularly ex-Serviceman, began to collect money to buy arms from tribesmen of the former Frontier Province.
This only states the intent to buy arms from the Frontier, not the act. So we can't be sure that arms were purchased in August. However, we have corroboration from State sources that it happened in September. So I will move this sentence to the September 1947 section. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Drivers refused to use the Srinagar–Rawalpindi road because of reports of disturbances and attacks by raiders.
in note: The state government had dispatched a large number of state troops to Kohala and Ramkot on the Domel Abbotabad road to ensure that the armed raiders did not cross the border.
@
Kautilya3: In the new section, I think, it is not clear as to who the raiders were (from where they were coming & who sent them?) and when they were attacking? The previous line in the para says The Pir of Manki Sharif was also reported to have sent agents provocateurs to frontier districts of Kashmir to prepare their Muslims for a 'holy crusade'
. So "agents provocateurs" were planned and sent to prepare armed raiders in border districts of Kashmir. Then, the state had dispatched troops to ensure which raiders did not cross the border, when the raiders were supposed to be made inside the border?
And I think, the content of this section also belongs in the Jammu massacres page, because of the Hindu & Sikh rufugees stuff. What do you say? — Tyler Durden ( talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
attacks by raidersto simply "raids". The original sentence from Jha is:
Motor drivers are refusing to use the Srinagar-Rawalpindi road because of reports of raiders burning lorries and destroying bridges and culverts.
The Pir of Manki Sharif was also reported to have sent agents provocateurs to frontier districts of Kashmir to prepare their Muslims for a 'holy crusade'. Kashmir responded by sealing the border with the provinces, and sending more troops to the border areas. The stream of Hindu and Sikh refugees coming from the Rawalpindi and Hazara districts also spread unease in the State. Is the paragraph trying to say that the communal tensions caused due to the arrival of refugees, and the state's militarisation of the region were some of the factors that drove the Muslims of Poonch and Mirpur districts to a rebellion? If that is so, I think it should be made somewhat more clear. Please read it from the perspective of an average Wikipedia reader. --- Tyler Durden ( talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the state's Hindus and Sikhs began to see Pakistan as a threat and decided that any local Muslims that were suspected of collaborating with Pakistan were to be eliminated.- This was a background factor for the Jammu massacres, right? Or for the Poonch rebellion also?
Danish.mehraj26, KA$HMIR, JosephusOfJerusalem: Would you care to explain what WP:COPYVIO you have found in this article? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Astore Malik you have added this content:
Together with Muslims from Bagh and Mirpur it was the Sudhans of Poonch who were at the heart of this campaign. [1]
References
- ^ Snedden, Christopher. Kashmir - The Untold Story. HarperCollins India. pp. 1937–1938. ISBN 9789350298985.
Those page numbers don't make sense. The book has only 435 pages. If you don't have the actual page numbers as in the published book, please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an claiming that Ibrahim Khan held a meeting of a "general assembly" at his residence in July 1947. I know that there are claims in this regard in Azad Kashmir. But they are squarely contradicted by the acting General Secretary of Muslim Conference, Ishaque Qureshi:
Qureshi says that the much trumpeted meeting of the MC general council which allegedly decided to accede to Pakistan, and on which Pakistan's case for Kashmir rested at that time, had never taken place. “All the leaders were in jail and we were the only ones active outside..." [1]
The scholars that scoured through Dawn and Pakistan Times of that period found no news of the supposed general council meeting. So this is entirely dubious. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
It’s important to add that the rebellion was a victory for the rebels in the infobox since the rebellion had succeeded in freeing the region from the maharajas rule and establishing Azad Kashmir. Ukiyology1 ( talk) 18:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)