Kashmir: Before the Pundits in 1990, what happened to the Muslims in 1947?

[Abdullah719]

We cannot be selective about the past in Jammu & Kashmir | Opinion

These days, we hear a lot about what happened to Kashmiri Pandits in 1990. It’s often described as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide”. For some, it’s justification for the recent de-operationalisation of Article 370. But not a word is spoken about what happened to Muslims in Jammu five decades earlier. That’s been completely forgotten. Yet, as Wajahat Habibullah, who was divisional commissioner (Kashmir) in 1990, when the Pandits were targeted, tells me this was “even more a case of genocide or ethnic cleansing”.

Now, it’s not my intention to diminish what happened to the Pandits. That was unacceptable and unforgivable. It was completely wrong. My aim is to tell you about the forgotten story of Jammu Muslims in 1947. If it’s right we should never forget or forgive the treatment of Pandits, then we have no excuse not to remember and continually condemn what was done to Jammu’s Muslims.

First, a little correction about the Pandit story. We’re told nearly 300,000 were thrown out of the Valley. Official records, however, suggest different numbers. In March 2010, the state government informed the legislature that of the total number of 150,000 Pandits, 24,202 families migrated in January 1990. At five persons per family, that comes to 121,010 people. The number of Pandits killed between 1989 and 2004 is put at 219.

Habibullah puts the figures a little higher. He says the total number of Pandits in 1990 was 200,000. After the migration that year, 20,000 were left. Over the next quarter century, that’s come down to around 3,500 people.

I turn now to Jammu just after Independence in 1947. At the time, it was a Muslim-majority city. But literally, in weeks, communal riots, mass killings and forced migration turned it into a Hindu-majority one. Both contemporary accounts and those of historians put the numbers killed or expelled in hundreds of thousands.

Writing in The Spectator in January 1948, Horace Alexander says: “Hindus and Sikhs of the Jammu area … apparently with at least the tacit consent of state authorities, have driven many thousands of their Muslim neighbours from their homes”. Citing Mahatma Gandhi, he asserts “some two hundred thousand are … not accounted for”. Christopher Snedden, in Kashmir: The Unwritten History, estimates between 70,000 and 237,000 Muslims were killed. Arjun Appaduri and Arien Mack in India’s World believe 200,000 could have been killed and a further 500,000 displaced. Last year, the columnist Swaminathan Aiyar wrote: “In sheer scale this far exceeded the ethnic cleansing of Pandits five decades later”.

So why is a horror of this scale not remembered? Habibullah, who’s written about it in My Kashmir: The Dying of the Light, suggests two reasons. First, it occurred when communal riots and brutal massacres were happening right across northern India. In that bigger outrage, this smaller tragedy seems to have been forgotten.

His second reason is intriguing. Sheikh Abdullah, then the undisputed leader of the Kashmir Valley, who one would have expected to draw attention to this massacre, deliberately chose to ignore it because the Muslims of Jammu did not support his National Conference, but leaned towards Jinnah’s Muslim League. The Sheikh’s politics seems to have silenced his conscience.

I realise that in terms of how much has changed since 1990, leave aside 1947, India is a very different country today. I also accept we need to move on and must not keep reliving the past. But if we’re going to recall what’s happened to Pandits in 1990, then it’s wrong – actually immoral – not to remember what happened to Muslims in 1947.

This is not a matter of intellectual honesty, though it’s that as well. It goes far deeper. It touches upon the unity of the multiple peoples and their identities that constitute India. We need to be conscious of all of them. If our memory becomes selective, it also becomes one-sided and that could divide us. We could end up a very different country to the one we want to be.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/colu...past-in-j-k/story-ELfaDpC6UoAfMbBNQTgIsO.html

 

[pillionrider]

Wouldn't this apply to any Muslim-majority region in India that saw a large exodus to Pakistan during partition. Or for that matter, a Hindu-dominated region when they left for India.

 

[IMMY69]

Wouldn't this apply to any Muslim-majority region in India that saw a large exodus to Pakistan during partition. Or for that matter, a Hindu-dominated region when they left for India.

So once we've established this, then what was the criteria for establishing Pakistan and an India free of British Imperialism?

 

[Swashbuckler]

If we go back to the 1946-48 period I am sure similar stuff happened in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan to Sikhs and Hindus. Punjab, Sindh, KPK, Bengal, East Pakistan, Assam, Bihar, UP, Indian Hyderabad, Delhi all must have faced migrations, pogroms, gender violence, a lot of devastation for millions of families. Sad truth, partition was a mess, was over with on the western front but as PP's modern history guru [MENTION=71]KB[/MENTION] once explained it continued for many decades on the eastern front with 1971 being a major flashpoint.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We cannot be selective about the past in Jammu & Kashmir | Opinion


I realise that in terms of how much has changed since 1990, leave aside 1947, India is a very different country today. I also accept we need to move on and must not keep reliving the past. But if we’re going to recall what’s happened to Pandits in 1990, then it’s wrong – actually immoral – not to remember what happened to Muslims in 1947.

This is not a matter of intellectual honesty, though it’s that as well. It goes far deeper. It touches upon the unity of the multiple peoples and their identities that constitute India. We need to be conscious of all of them. If our memory becomes selective, it also becomes one-sided and that could divide us. We could end up a very different country to the one we want to be.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/colu...past-in-j-k/story-ELfaDpC6UoAfMbBNQTgIsO.html

I would suggest India isn't that different from 1947 or 1990. It's still a country that periodically lapses into communal violence, and it's still a country where this violence is whitewashed by the state. Partition is still ongoing in many ways.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Karan Thapar trying his usual spinning tactics to gain relevance, forgets what happened to Hindus in Poonch and other areas of PoK. Secondly when this happened, the entire subcontinent was going through communal violence.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Karan Thapar trying his usual spinning tactics to gain relevance, forgets what happened to Hindus in Poonch and other areas of PoK. Secondly when this happened, the entire subcontinent was going through communal violence.

So hasnt kashmir been going through communal viloence for last 70 year's.

 

[kk1992]

Karan Thapar trying his usual spinning tactics to gain relevance, forgets what happened to Hindus in Poonch and other areas of PoK. Secondly when this happened, the entire subcontinent was going through communal violence.

Actually you’re trying your usual tactics when you can’t refute history by using the tested and tried method, talking about reporter.

Aren’t you the same one who were mistaking exodus with genocide?

 

[Badsha]

I can confirm. I have relatives who were from jammu. They were all either massacred or kidnapped

 

[Nostalgic]

As can I: one of my aunts (married to my eldest maternal uncle) was from Jammu. She was six years old when they escaped, and her father would often relate tales of that time. Sialkot, where they settled, is full of Jammu Muslims.

While it’s true that massacres occurred elsewhere not only in Kashmir but also the rest of the subcontinent during that period, this one stands out for two reasons: first, this one was state-orchestrated. The Dogra regime and its army was complicit, and aiding them were the RSS. As a child, it was from my aunt’s father that I first heard of the RSS. This wasn’t mob violence, as was usually the case elsewhere, but a government performing the deed.

Secondly, this massacare stands out because it rendered a majority a minority. Elsewhere, it was more a case of beleaguered minorities being reduced to even smaller minorities. I don’t know if there were other such cases of a majority being made a minority during that era.

By the way, Sheikh Abdullah, the Mir Jafar of recent times, was well aware of the massacres, and chose to remain mum. This was because his erstwhile ally-turned-arch rival, Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas, was from Jammu, and his Muslim Conference (which Abdullah had been a founder of), was aligned with the Muslim League, was supportive of Pakistan, and was by far the more popular party in Jammu. Sheikh Abdullah probably didn’t mind a few hundred thousand of them being driven across the border so his own numbers could be bolstered. Years later, he passed a bill of some sort “allowing” Jammu Muslims to return if they pleased, a case of too little too late if ever there was one.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

 

[Tiger96]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

Fair Post.

Pakistanis/ SC Muslims brag about enslaving Indigenous people of the Indian Region for 1000 years when Islam had no business to be in this place. Now so what if some Muslims are at the receiving end.

 

[rahulrulezz]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

Not that I agree with some points of your posts, but you do have a point that Islam is a very recent religion and basically converted almost every non Muslim to Muslim in a very short span.

Most important example is Zorashterians from Iran. Just 1000 years back, Whole of Iran was following Zorashterinism. However, after the caliphate in Iran, almost everyone concert. Few thousands of Zorasterians saves themselves by migrating to India. And guess what, India now has more population of Zorashtans than Iran. Says a lot about how welcoming ancient India and Indic religions are.

 

[Patriot]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

Oh please. What a rubbish post. This isn’t isolated to Muslims. All people of all religions have subjugated other people. Examples are littered throughout history. Look at what the French Catholics did to the French Huguenots during the wars of religion and that’s just one example.

The problem is people as it’s always been. People are selfish, greedy, power hungry, etc.

 

[Pakistanian]

Not just in 1947, Kashmiri Muslims were being persecuted by the Dogras and Sikhs throughout the 19th and early 20th century which led to a large migration of ethnic Kashmiri Muslims to Punjab and even today there's a large community of Kashmiri-origin Punjabis.

 

[KB]

As can I: one of my aunts (married to my eldest maternal uncle) was from Jammu. She was six years old when they escaped, and her father would often relate tales of that time. Sialkot, where they settled, is full of Jammu Muslims.

While it’s true that massacres occurred elsewhere not only in Kashmir but also the rest of the subcontinent during that period, this one stands out for two reasons: first, this one was state-orchestrated. The Dogra regime and its army was complicit, and aiding them were the RSS. As a child, it was from my aunt’s father that I first heard of the RSS. This wasn’t mob violence, as was usually the case elsewhere, but a government performing the deed.

Secondly, this massacare stands out because it rendered a majority a minority. Elsewhere, it was more a case of beleaguered minorities being reduced to even smaller minorities. I don’t know if there were other such cases of a majority being made a minority during that era.

By the way, Sheikh Abdullah, the Mir Jafar of recent times, was well aware of the massacres, and chose to remain mum. This was because his erstwhile ally-turned-arch rival, Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas, was from Jammu, and his Muslim Conference (which Abdullah had been a founder of), was aligned with the Muslim League, was supportive of Pakistan, and was by far the more popular party in Jammu. Sheikh Abdullah probably didn’t mind a few hundred thousand of them being driven across the border so his own numbers could be bolstered. Years later, he passed a bill of some sort “allowing” Jammu Muslims to return if they pleased, a case of too little too late if ever there was one.

A fine post. It points to the fact that partition violence was not of a uniform nature. In some parts of the subcontinent violence was made possible by the breakdown of state authority which enabled perpetrators to act with impunity. However in certain princely states in the north, primarily Kashmir, the Punjab states, Alwar and Bharatpur, violence was in fact aided and abetted by the state administration. Jammu is a striking example of state sanctioned violence.

A final point needs to be made in respect of the rehabilitation of refugees in post independent Pakistan. Historian Ilyas Chattha has pointed to the fact that the Government of Pakistan believed that Kashmiri refugees had in fact been subject to “proportionally” greater violence than other refugees. Yet they were excluded from permanent resettlement schemes under the expectation that they would return to the Kashmir state upon the resolution of the dispute. They were thus allotted properties on a ‘temporary basis’ and so compared with refugees from East Punjab, rehabilitation was a more drawn out process.

 

[JaDed]

Not just in 1947, Kashmiri Muslims were being persecuted by the Dogras and Sikhs throughout the 19th and early 20th century which led to a large migration of ethnic Kashmiri Muslims to Punjab and even today there's a large community of Kashmiri-origin Punjabis.

That logic is similar to Hindus being killed by
Mughals.

Sikhs had worse fate, their 9th Guru was beheaded before they went on killing years later.

This is exactly what RSS and Muslim leagues have based their foundations on.

 

[JaDed]

Oh please. What a rubbish post. This isn’t isolated to Muslims. All people of all religions have subjugated other people. Examples are littered throughout history. Look at what the French Catholics did to the French Huguenots during the wars of religion and that’s just one example.

The problem is people as it’s always been. People are selfish, greedy, power hungry, etc.

Yes..good post.

 

[Nostalgic]

A fine post. It points to the fact that partition violence was not of a uniform nature. In some parts of the subcontinent violence was made possible by the breakdown of state authority which enabled perpetrators to act with impunity. However in certain princely states in the north, primarily Kashmir, the Punjab states, Alwar and Bharatpur, violence was in fact aided and abetted by the state administration. Jammu is a striking example of state sanctioned violence.

A final point needs to be made in respect of the rehabilitation of refugees in post independent Pakistan. Historian Ilyas Chattha has pointed to the fact that the Government of Pakistan believed that Kashmiri refugees had in fact been subject to “proportionally” greater violence than other refugees. Yet they were excluded from permanent resettlement schemes under the expectation that they would return to the Kashmir state upon the resolution of the dispute. They were thus allotted properties on a ‘temporary basis’ and so compared with refugees from East Punjab, rehabilitation was a more drawn out process.

Thanks @KB. Could you also comment on my second point, i.e. a majority reduced to a minority during the partition riots. We’re there other such instances? I guess the Gurdaspur district could be another example.

I find the Jammu vs Kashmir subplot within the J&K saga fascinating. Any good sources to better understand this?

 

[Musakhel]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

You do know muslims finally became a majority in what was british punjab, basically Both east and west punjab Plus haryana in the 1880s, this is after 700 years muslims rule of the region, 50 years sikh rule, and the remainder british, so please tell me why it took the 880s years to become 50.1% and a good 100 years after muslim rule had ended.

 

[Musakhel]

The Punjab was a religiously eclectic province, comprising Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. In 1881, the two largest religious groups were Muslims (47.6%) and Hindus (43.8%). By 1941, the religious composition had evolved, with Muslims constituting an absolute majority at 53.2%, whilst the Hindu population had fallen to 29.1%. The decrease in the Hindu population has been attributed to the conversion of a number of lower caste Hindus to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity. The period between 1881 and 1941 saw a significant increase in the Sikh and Christian populations, growing from 8.2% and 0.1% to 14.9% and 1.9% respectively

 

[SakunaPataka]

Oh please. What a rubbish post. This isn’t isolated to Muslims.
All people of all religions have subjugated other people. Examples are littered throughout history.

Not Hinduism/Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism which is the context as we are talking about Indian Subcontinent.

Look at what the French Catholics did to the French Huguenots during the wars of religion and that’s just one example.

The problem is people as it’s always been. People are selfish, greedy, power hungry, etc.

I never said that other religions did not indulge in such crimes which doesn't mean that you commit the same crimes. In any case the context is w.r.t Indian Sub Continent.

 

[PakLFC]

The pundits should be allowed back home. Yet these Pundits must acknowledge that majority of Indians are hated by Kashmiris so either they choose Kashmir or India.

 

[Halaribo]

Sure lets talk about history ... lets start from Day 1 so we cover the entire length of the Hindu-Muslim episode. How do you guys think Islam replaced Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jains in vast swaths of Indian subcontinent ? I can assure it involved some horrendous crimes committed by some despicable lowlifes who are considered as "heroes" even to this day in Pakistan.

Moral of the story is Pakistanis should be the very last set of people to cry about religious violence coming their way... you think people would just continue to put up with your medieval style of doing business ? What goes around has a way of coming around and biting you in the backside.

And history is evidence to the fact that there is very little chance of peaceful co-existence with Muslims. God forbid if you are in the minority. This is a worldwide phenomena that keeps recurring over and over again.

Moral of the story is that you will happily oppress others in revenge in the present while lamenting what you perceive as oppression in the past.

And also since you've taken the chappal of every person going in history, it's taken your people to become oppressors to feel good about yourselves.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Not that I agree with some points of your posts, but you do have a point that Islam is a very recent religion and basically converted almost every non Muslim to Muslim in a very short span.

Most important example is Zorashterians from Iran. Just 1000 years back, Whole of Iran was following Zorashterinism. However, after the caliphate in Iran, almost everyone concert. Few thousands of Zorasterians saves themselves by migrating to India. And guess what, India now has more population of Zorashtans than Iran. Says a lot about how welcoming ancient India and Indic religions are.

Thats quite right about Zoroastrians. Another example is that of Jews who landed in India nearly 2000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_India

There is not one single incident of religious animosity between Hindus and Jews nor have they been coerced

 

[SakunaPataka]

Moral of the story is that you will happily oppress others in revenge in the present while lamenting what you perceive as oppression in the past.

Percieved ? i mean I can literally show you dozens of hindu temples destroyed, unless you think aliens were involved.

And also since you've taken the chappal of every person going in history, it's taken your people to become oppressors to feel good about yourselves.

Its called learning from past mistakes. Now why dont you enlighten us how you feel smug and proud about the death and destruction undertaken by various cretins that Pakistan is openly proud about ?

 

[Halaribo]

Its called learning from past mistakes. Now why dont you enlighten us how you feel smug and proud about the death and destruction undertaken by various cretins that Pakistan is openly proud about ?

So you consider India's present oppressive policies and beliefs as the implementation of "lessons learnt".

Why are you crying then? You owe everything to the maar you consider your people got. Be more grateful.

Learning lessons would be to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

I literally had no interest in Pakistan-India beef until reading the absolute ** that people come out with since Modi took over.

It's like millions of shrivelled appendages were injected with ketamin and found a new lease of life.

Reality is, you give it the big one on here, as soon as you leave your front door, you're back to "Yes sir, No sir".

 

[SakunaPataka]

So you consider India's present oppressive policies and beliefs as the implementation of "lessons learnt".

Why are you crying then? You owe everything to the maar you consider your people got. Be more grateful.

Learning lessons would be to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

I literally had no interest in Pakistan-India beef until reading the absolute ** that people come out with since Modi took over.

It's like millions of shrivelled appendages were injected with ketamin and found a new lease of life.

Reality is, you give it the big one on here, as soon as you leave your front door, you're back to "Yes sir, No sir".

Who's crying ? You may want to check the nationality of the participants that are crying here about the "zulm" being dished out by the evil Hindu nation. lol

Those who hold Ghazni's and Ghoris in high regard deserve every bit of pain coming their way. Your own standards and yardsticks. Truly Karma is a evil b***h ehh ?

 

[Musakhel]

Who's crying ? You may want to check the nationality of the participants that are crying here about the "zulm" being dished out by the evil Hindu nation. lol

Those who hold Ghazni's and Ghoris in high regard deserve every bit of pain coming their way. Your own standards and yardsticks. Truly Karma is a evil b***h ehh ?

Great logic, so Kings from central asia invaded India, and your revenge is on Some kashmiris???

 

[SakunaPataka]

Great logic, so Kings from central asia invaded India, and your revenge is on Some kashmiris???

why dont you first explain why your nation is still proud of these cretins in this day and age ?

 

[Patriot]

why dont you first explain why your nation is still proud of these cretins in this day and age ?

Why are the English proud of Churchill even though he had a hand in the Bengal famine.

Why do people from Kazakstan and Central Asia revere Timur, even though he massacred many people.

Why do the Americans stand proud of their generals, even though they wiped out the native population.

Why do the English have a favourable outlook to Henry V and why was he glorified by Shakespeare, despite killing many Frenchmen and all for land and power. He even persecuted his own Englishmen for religion.

People always have a rose tinted view of the past and no one from anywhere has any higher moral ground to stand on. Stop having a dick measuring contest about who’s historical ruler was worse.

You talk about Hinduism/Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism not being involved in oppression. That’s because the first three of these religions or so uninspiring that they have never gained much traction from outside the subcontinent, so they have not had much contact with outside people, apart from inward conquests by Central Asians and the British. If they had, I guarantee you someone would have led them to conquests resulting in bloodshed.

Buddhism is different as it has spread, but I don’t know much about it apart from that it’s not a religion in the true sense.

 

[SakunaPataka]

Why are the English proud of Churchill even though he had a hand in the Bengal famine.

Why do people from Kazakstan and Central Asia revere Timur, even though he massacred many people.

Why do the Americans stand proud of their generals, even though they wiped out the native population.

Why do the English have a favourable outlook to Henry V and why was he glorified by Shakespeare, despite killing many Frenchmen and all for land and power. He even persecuted his own Englishmen for religion.

People always have a rose tinted view of the past and no one from anywhere has any higher moral ground to stand on. Stop having a dick measuring contest about who’s historical ruler was worse.

and as I have said those who eulogize bonafide mass murderers should at the very least not go crying worldwide when others decide to dish out some of the same meds ( actually far more diluted in the case of Kashmir but I digress). Your own yardstick remember ?

You talk about Hinduism/Sikhism/Jainism/Buddhism not being involved in oppression. That’s because the first three of these religions or so uninspiring that they have never gained much traction from outside the subcontinent,

so they have not had much contact with outside people, apart from inward conquests by Central Asians and the British. If they had, I guarantee you someone would have led them to conquests resulting in bloodshed.

Buddhism is different as it has spread, but I don’t know much about it apart from that it’s not a religion in the true sense.

how do you think Buddhism traveled from Bihar to Tokyo and to central asia ? Your ignorance about it is entirely your own problem.

Did you say un-inspirinng ? Bloody hell the spiritual content produced by Hinduism and its offshoots absolutely drowns the spiritual content produced by all other religions put together. Go educate yourselves before you make a fool of yourselves. Google is free btw.

 

[Patriot]

and as I have said those who eulogize bonafide mass murderers should at the very least not go crying worldwide when others decide to dish out some of the same meds ( actually far more diluted in the case of Kashmir but I digress). Your own yardstick remember ?

how do you think Buddhism traveled from Bihar to Tokyo and to central asia ? Your ignorance about it is entirely your own problem.

Did you say un-inspirinng ? Bloody hell the spiritual content produced by Hinduism and its offshoots absolutely drowns the spiritual content produced by all other religions put together. Go educate yourselves before you make a fool of yourselves. Google is free btw.

Lol who’s crying. I don’t care much about Indians and Pakistanis and their conflicts. My personal view is that Indian Kashmir is their own issue and not something Pakistan should get itself involved with.

Lol. Bad argument, body of work doesn’t translate into the religion spreading. Hinduism hasn’t inspired much outside the subcontinent. Your own people are turning away from it by becoming Atheists. It’s a dying religion.

 

[KB]

Thanks @KB. Could you also comment on my second point, i.e. a majority reduced to a minority during the partition riots. We’re there other such instances? I guess the Gurdaspur district could be another example.

I find the Jammu vs Kashmir subplot within the J&K saga fascinating. Any good sources to better understand this?

I guess the two regions that come to mind are certain areas of Gurdaspur but also parts of the Ferozepur District. Overall the Ferozepur District was non-Muslim, but two of its northern tehsils had Muslim majorities.

In regard to the 'Jammu vs Kashmir subplot' I think there is a lot more to be written on this. I am not sure there are any fantastic sources, but there is some material in an article Ian Copland wrote, 'The Abdullah Factor' and in one of the chapters in Christopher Snedden's more recent account, The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir

 

[IMMY69]

Mahatma Gandhi commented on the situation in Jammu on 25 December 1947 in his speech at a prayer meeting in New Delhi: "The Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu and those who had gone there from outside killed Muslims. The Maharaja of Kashmir is responsible for what is happening there…A large number of Muslims have been killed there and Muslim women have been dishonoured."

 

[Nostalgic]

I guess the two regions that come to mind are certain areas of Gurdaspur but also parts of the Ferozepur District. Overall the Ferozepur District was non-Muslim, but two of its northern tehsils had Muslim majorities.

In regard to the 'Jammu vs Kashmir subplot' I think there is a lot more to be written on this. I am not sure there are any fantastic sources, but there is some material in an article Ian Copland wrote, 'The Abdullah Factor' and in one of the chapters in Christopher Snedden's more recent account, The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir

Thanks, I just bought The Politcal Inheritence of Pakistan and read the Copland chapter. It is enough to make one’s head spin. The continuous ebb and flow of popularity between the NC and the MC right up to partition suggests there’s no way to say for sure which way the valley would’ve titled in a plebiscite, but one can safely conclude that the NC would’ve fared badly in Jammu division, especially in what is now Azad Kashmir. That said, one gets the feeling that pro-Pakistan and pro-India sentiment did not neatly correspond with support for MC and NC respectively, a case in point being the detail that it wasn’t uncommon for people in the valley to have portraits of Sheikh Abdullah and Jinnah side by side.

One person who comes through really poorly in the article is Mirwaiz Yusuf Shah. The author has a dim view of the future president of AJK.

The chapter did touch briefly on the Kashmir-Jammu dynamic, but it left me wanting for more. I’ll look for the Snedden book next.