Talk:Kashmiri Pandits

India Unassessed

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Bounty notice I deleted a large section taken from this website, which explicitly forbids people from reproducing its material without permission. (If someone can show that they do give us permission, though, we can reinstate and wikify that material.) QuartierLatin1968 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is NPOV... at all... it reads like propaganda.

What is the basis of the claim that Sanskrit originated in Kashmir?

as written in the article,suresh raina playing for indian cricket team is a kashmiri pandit..as far as i know,he is not,he belongs to UP..its just that his surname is raina and most kashmiris are raina.. Chhaviraina 12:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnic Cleansing"

These kinds of statements are useless unless a SOURCE is provided to verify them... otherwise they are merely baseless propaganda. I will continue to revert these POV edits until someone can provide a legitimate source to back up their claims. Please also look up the term "ethnic cleansing" in a dictionary to understand the full implications of its meaning. Thanks.

It's unfortunate that you do not see ethnic cleansing of Pandits as part of their history, but as some kind of propoganda. The Holocaust is an intrinsic part of Jewish history not a propoganda. Unfortunately for Kashmiri Pandits, there has been hardly any media attention or universal outrage resulting in comments like these.

In the early 1990s, Islamic militants publicly announced that there was no place for Pandits in Kashmir as they not only represented the "Kafirs" but were also symbolic of the Indian presence in Kashmir. Shortly afterwards hundreds of Pandits were singled out and brutally massacared in a carefully planned and excuted campaign of terror and murder. Those who survived, or had the chance, fled for their lives to other parts of India. The mass exodus of Pandits as a result of the carnage inflicted on them by Islamic terrorists resulted in Kashmir being now almost completely a muslim territory. Pandits, the original inhabitants of Kashmir for thousands of years meanwhile languish in poverty and indifference. This, my dear friend, is ethnic cleansing in any language.

Furthermore, Suresh Raina is a Kashmiri born and brought up in UP, just as Nehru was.

One thing should be pretty clear that it is proven that kashmiri pundits are fleding toward india for last seven or eight centuries. I think most of indians who have kashmiri surnames may have some sort of connection with those fleding kashmiri pundits, though today these indians with kashmiri surnames have hardly kashmiri features and skin tone because of the mixing with local indians. (From Son Of Kashmir) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you provide some sources verifying these claims, I have no qualms with you referring to this movement as "ethnic cleansing." Thanks.

"Muslim Invasion"

Okay, if we are to have a discussion about history, let's do it. First of all, if you are going to give a chronology, please use a reliable source...like one that doesn't jump over several centuries at a time and clearly has a pro-Hindu bent.

That being said, lets move straight on to Sultan Sikander. He was the seventh hereditary successor to the Sultanate throne of Kashmir. The first Sultan was originally a Ladakhi Buddhist prince named Rinchana who claimed the throne in 1320 after the devastation and retreat of the Chaghtai warlord Zulju. He converted to Islam while on the throne and changed his name to Shadru'd-Din. Sikander gained the throne after 69 years of local Muslim ruler -- no invading going on. However, during these 69 years there was tension between Hindu and Muslim communities, as many Central Asian muslims migrated to Kashmir to escape the Chaghtai and later Timurid conquests in further northwest. Sikander himself was a very nasty ruler. He was heavily influenced by his cheif minister Shaifu'd-Din who was a zelous Sunni muslim who convinced Sikander to impose strict shari'a law, jiziya (tax on non-Muslims), destroyed several temples and forced conversion. It is interesting to note that Shaifu'd-Din (the zealous chief minister) was himself a Brahmin Kashmiri Pandit (Suhabhatta) who converted to Islam. Also, several of Sikander's generals were Hindu and his wives -(whose children inhereted the throne) were as well.

We know much of this information from Jonaraja's Rajatarangini (which by the way was a Sanskrit text produced by a Kashmiri Pandit under the patronage of Sultan Zainu'l-'Abidin). In fact, many Kashmiri Pandits were employed in the court of Sultan Zainu'l-'Abidin to produce Sanskrit texts. And he was only 7 years after Sikander and reversed all of his anti-Hindu policies.

All this is to say that Kashmir was not pummelled by Muslim invaders who took over, looted and pillaged. There was a stable, centralized, native Muslim Sultanate that ruled Kashmir with stability for 150 years. Yes, some of these Sultans were oppressive to Hindu population, but several also patronized the building of temples and the authoring of Sanskrit texts.

On a completely separate note, scholars like Ronald Davidson poses strong arguments that many Brahmins migrated for patronage from weakening to stronger courts in North India from the 7th to 12th centuries during the rapid turnover of regional rulers -- all of this before Muslims were a major presence. The last major expansionist ruler of Kashmir before the Sultanate was Lalitaditya in the 9th century. Most history shows that the Kashmiri court suffered great infighting after his rule, and within two centuries it was in shambles. I have little doubt that many Pandits fled Kashmir at that point to find stability and patronage.

All of this is to say that the reasons for early Kashmiri Pandit diaspora is not clear, and the basis for "Muslim invasions" is tenuous. Hindu oppression certainly occurred (under Sikander for sure), but so did Hindu patronage and temple building. In fact, archives show that Akbar (centuries later) even noted how many Hindu temples from before Sultanate continued to exist in his own time.

However, as I mentioned before, I do clearly admit and condemn the incredible violence against Kashmiri Pandits during the 1990s. However, contemporary politics should not blind us to the realities of the past. Deandruid 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)deandruid[reply]

Please see http://www.kashmir-information.com/chronology.html for a brief chronology of invasions. In addition to this it is well documented that Sikander Butshikan of Sayyed dynasty ((1389-1413) killed several kashmiri pandits and forced many of them to convert. He was a known iconoclast who firmly intended to and finally did establish the Rule of Islam in Kashmir. So an invasion in which Native religious icons are destroyed and an attempt is made to establish a rule of islam can be considered a Muslim Invasion. For example, in a HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO, a thai invasion of italy in which churches are destroyed and buddha statues are installed and the native christians asked to leave can be termed as a buddhist invastion In any case, the religious inclination of the invaders was Muslim which is a well known fact. I have provided references for Sikander's invasions. In fact there are were many rulers who persecuted the pandits like Ali shah, khokha (sp?) etc. The migrations of the Kashmiri Pandits have been classified by historians, UN and US house of rep as forced..so calling them gradual migrations is wrong and could imply that they might have migrated for economic or other reasons. I guess we cannot change the facts or twist the truth just to make it NPOV, its just like saying the jews gradually migrated out of israel without giving reasons for the exodus or saying that the holocaust is "believed to have happened" because some people do not believe in its veracity. In fact the migrations can be called "ethnic cleansing" as referred to by several historians, UN, Amnesty as well As Rep. Pallone. However, I am not sure whether to use this term or not.

A couple months back I edited this article to provide a more NPOV regarding Kashmiri Pandit migration. However, it has been edited back to read "forced to migrate to other parts of India over the centuries due to countless Muslim invasions." Three problems arise with this statement. First, migration happened, but how do we know it was "forced" way back when (this does not include the 1990s, etc.)? Second, there was massive political instability in 12th-15th centuries Kashmir, both internal and external. "Invasions" cannot be so directly blamed. Third, Zulju did in fact wipe out the Valley; however, why is his invasion labeled "Muslim" rather than simply Turko-Mongol or Chagtai? That's like saying when the UK enters a war it is an "Anglican invasion" simply because the UK has an official religion, i.e. the monarch is the head of the church. I don't know why his conjectured religious affiliation must be mentioned as part of his military exploits which seem to have no religious purpose. Deandruid 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)deandruid[reply]

Improvement and issues

came accres this article and would like to give my opinion and improve it a bit. as regards the above issues;

1. User IP (67...) plzz give reference for Sanskrit origin of kashmir as asked by dreandruid.

2. dreandruid i agree with you abt the social and political instability in kashmir, but that was not the cause of migration of pandits. the cause of the migration of pandits was that thousands of them were killed by the muslim rulers or forcefully converted. hundreds of temples and learning centres were destroyed. since many pandits were patronised by these temples and learning centres they lost their livlihood. this loss of livlihood coupled with the severe danger to the life of their families forced them to leave the valley. this has been recorded by historians including muslim historians. i recommed you to read tarakh-i-farishta by mhmd qasim which records these chronicles of temple destructions. I am going to remove this political instability issue altogether from this article as it is not the chief reason for the pandit migration. the instability was a fact but its related to the history of kashmir and not kashmiri pandits.

again i do not agree with your choice of words of "gradual migration" or even the other user's choice of "forced migration". Looking at some references cited, since reliable sources UN and us House have called it ethnic cleansing, I would go with ethnic cleansing. We have to use the terminology as used by reliable sources. our words would imply orignal research.

3. yes i agree, some sultans could have patronized the pandits a bit, but the in last 700-800 yrs... but most of them hv been hostile to them and hv subjected them to genocide and forced conversions. so i think we hv to go by wht most of them did...basically wht the kashmiri pandits went through during most of the muslim rule. i hope all of you agree wit this.

3. Again plzz note tht this article isnt abt hindus in general. this is abt the atrocities committed specifically on kashmiri pandits (who just happen to be hindus) by the fundamental muslims. this has been documented and cannot be ignored. its happening even today.

4. the article is missing info abt kashmiri pandits forced to live in refugee camps even today and govt not taking strong action abt their condition. i am adding the same

5. with reference to the civil war mentioned by dreandruid..the civil war also consisted of forced conversion and killing of pandits. During civil war around 25000 pandits were converted to shia faith and thousands were killed. The property of the Hindus was confiscated. And those who were allowed to live had to pay Jazia which was revived by Musa Raina.With Musa Raina and Shamsuddin Iraqi, the Shia preacher, came back to Kashmir with re-doubled enthusiasm for the propagation of his faith. Not content with peaceful preachings, forcible methods came to be practised.

Alishah, son of sikander continued the holocaust.

-Thank you for the lengthy response. Although we may still disagree on some of the historical issues, I agree with you that those issues should be left to a separate page on Early Modern Kashmiri History, not on a page on Kashmiri Pandits. Maybe the paragraph on that early history should be left to a minimum on this page so as to highlight the other sections and leave decisions regarding historical interpretation to other wiki pages and the readers themselves. Deandruid 06:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt put in the Sanskrit part. Anyway thanks guys for your edits. The article looks much better now. To the above user (not dreandruid), I chose forcible migration because there seemed to be a dispute. In fact I gave links from very reliable sources which refer to the issue as ethnic cleansing. To dreandruid, could you please say why you had changed the word 'ethnic cleansing' again to gradual migration? I think the above user is correct in saying that we should use words by a reliable source. In fact it was also my mistake that I used 'forcible migration' instead. Do you have any specific reason of not using those words used by sources like UN and US House of Representatives? I am changing it back, if you have any reason to not accept those words, I think we can discuss and revert back to the current version. In any case thanks both you guys for helping shape up the article better!! 67.184.103.51 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to "ethnic clensing" in the first paragraph because, as I understand it, the UN ad US House of Representatives are referrring to the ethnic clensing of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s, not warfare of the 14th century. Later on in the article there is a whole subsection on ethnic clensing (where it is also directly connected to events in the 90s).Deandruid 06:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "There is mention of the Dardic people, who lived outside the valley of Kashmir. The Kashmiris are not Dards." because it contradicts Dard_people and I added the link disputing the Aryan origin of Kashmiris.^[1]

Dacool7 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt the Kashmiri society is imbalanced today without the pundits.it is like an ecosystem which has lost some species critical for its survival.It would also be foolish to say that they have not been wronged. They have suffered a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.65.67 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml

[1] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml

[1]

"Ethnic Cleansing"

See also

"Muslim Invasion"

Improvement and issues