Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

State subjects, permanent residents and domicile

The term "state subjects" should not be used even though the locals use it and some newspapers unwittingly reproduce it. It is a British Raj-era term that was replaced by "permanent residents" in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (now defunct). The criteria said that one had to have lawfully acquired immoval property before 1954. That effectively meant that only the former "state subjects" would have qualified. People that were left out were the refugees that came from West Pakistan, the workers that J&K imported from outside (especially the cleaning staff), and Indian officials would might be posted in J&K and reside there for long periods. There was also an issue of women who might marry out of the state and lose permanent residence as a result. (Their numbers might have been small, but it was a political hot potato).

It was these categories that have been accommodated in the new domicile rules. It is not appropriate to call them "outsiders" or "non-locals". (Currently, the infobox uses "non-locals" reproducing TRF's POV claim.) In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, their breakdown was given [1]. In the recent debate in the Assembly, the government did not give any breakdown [2]. I see it as an obvious attempt to inflame feelings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I get that "demographic change" is TRF POV but what should be written in motive then? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I already changed it to "alleged demographic change". That is good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it is written "alleged non-local settlement", which is more precise than demographic change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

makes sense. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is it alleged we still hold our state subject certificates. While the State Subject Law was replaced with domicile law by india. With abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. issuing new domicile certificate to non-locals under new law does not alter the historical distinction between locals and non-locals. And its fact not allegation that 83000 domiciles was issued to non-locals even all sources mention non-locals. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a definition of "non-local" nor any justification for why such people are supposed to be "non-local". The new domicile law has its own restrictions and is in line with the domicile laws used for other states in India. One man's "non-local" can be another man's "local". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The 1929 state-subject law clearly define who is local and who is not its doesn’t erase the historical fact of who was originally recognised as local here. Well i have no problem with using anything. There are thousands of kashmiri pages using same one side narrative which can never be fixed.

https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/State_Subject_Rules.htm Aliyiya5903 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The Harvard Law Review article, which I regard as a reliable source for legal matters (though not for political matters), says this:

However, a new land order may have already superseded the domicile laws in importance, having repealed twelve former state land laws and amended fourteen others.[205] The order erased Article 35A’s vestiges, largely removing the “permanent residency” clause across Kashmir’s land regime.[206] Notably, it did not limit land transactions to newly defined domiciliaries. The law also empowers non-Kashmiris to re-purpose agricultural land, which constitutes ninety percent of the region, for non-agricultural purposes.[207]

The citations 205–207 are all primary sources (government notifications/laws/regulations). There is no mention of "domicile" here. Indeed, the domicile rules are primarily meant for state government jobs and, here, they are also applied to college seats. They don't have anything to do with settlement or purchase of property. So, any Indian citizen can purchase land and settle down in Kashmir. No "domicile status" is required. It would be wrong for us to peddle this misinformation. So, I propose that we remove the mention of "domicile status" from the main page.

Indeed, it is a fundamental right granted in the Indian constitution that any citizen of India can choose to reside in any part of India. Laws can be made to restrict it only "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe." (Article 19, section 5) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: That is a student note (hence anonymous, as tradition for Harvard Law Review) and not really RS. It should be removed for whatever statement it is being used to support. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I will remove it. Upon double-checking, I find that the last sentence above is inaccurate. So it doesn't seem reliable even for legal matters.

Here are sources contradicting the last sentence:

• Rekha Chowdhary, Reorganisation of J&K and Anxiety in Jammu: One Year After, Economic and Political Weekly, 13 February 2021. ProQuest 2497487850
• Shakir Mir, J&K Govt's New Domicile Certificate Rules a Move to Undercut Resistance from Kashmiri Officials?, The Wire, 19 May 2020.
• Peerzada Ashiq, Now, outsiders can buy land in Jammu and Kashmir, The Hindu, 27 October 2020.
• Safwat Zargar, Explainer: What exactly are the changes to land laws in Jammu and Kashmir?, Scroll.in, 29 October 2020.

The last source in particular explains the various intricacies, which the student note didn't seem to understand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Settler colonialism?

Wikipedious1 In this edit, you have added a speculative claim of "settler colonialism" with a large number of citations. But none of them presents any evidence of "settler colonialism" as having occurred. They only talk about "fears", including a supposed journal article in Third World Quarterly. Fears were already mentioned in the preceding sentence. Why should this new content be used here at all? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

In January 2021, TRF shot and killed a 70-year old goldsmith, who lived in Kashmir for over 50 years. Apparently, he obtained a domicile certificate, which brought him the ire of TRF.

The TRF claimed responsibility for the killing, saying Nischal was part of a "settler project" and that anyone who obtains domicile "will be treated as occupiers."

So these op-ed writers and supposed journal authors are feeding into this extremist narrative. A supposed "historian and political analyst" called Siddiq Wahid told Deutsche Welle that "the new land laws violated India's constitution". No explanation as to how they are supposed to have violated the Indian constitution. And, Ather Zia, one of your op-ed columnists, agreed, according Deutsche Welle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Any updates to this ? Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

There are I think 8 sources to go through about settler colonialism in Kashmir, so if you have specific grievances with specific sources, please share. I don't want my response to be discarded as "a wall of text" again if I were to go through each source and dissect the ways in which they discuss Indian settler colonialism in Kashmir, but if you want us to do that, we can.

As far as why this content should be included I'm just going to copy and paste my thoughts from the discussion I started, I hope you are able to respect my thoughts, respond clearly, and consider what I have to say, just as I would for you:

I want to keep this content because the Indian military occupation of Kashmir, as part of Indian settler colonialism in Kashmir, is relevant when discussing the Kashmir conflict, of which this attack is apart of.

If the 2019 revocation is pertinent enough to discuss in the article as background information, then so is the perspective of many analysts who view the revocation as part of Indian settler colonialism in Kashmir.

TRF initially claimed responsibility for the attack and unambiguously linked the attack to the 2019 revocation and alleged Indian settlerism in Kashmir.

Assuming TRF committed the attack with their initially stated motives, then there is clearly a through-line that can be constructed from: Indian occupation of Kashmir -> 2019 revocation and resulting military crackdown -> increase, or alleged increase, of Indian settlerism in Kashmir -> analysts discussing the 2019 revocation as settler colonialism -> 2025 attack committed by TRF -> TRF claims responsibility and states Indian settlerism in Kashmir as a motive for the attack. So it is relevant to state that some analysts, journalists, commentators etc (including some Kashmiris) believe that India is perpetrating settler colonialism in the region. Again this is pertinent when discussing the background context and factors that led up to this attack.

I think the text and sources is completely appropriate, in terms of weight and proportionality, in discussing settler colonialism as a background factor of the attack. It is clearly not a fringe theory, as the settler colonial theory is supported by many journalists, analysts, commentators, as well as a professor, and has been openly discussed in journals and RS. Speaking more specifically in terms of proportionality, I think the proportion of this content to the rest of the article including the rest of the background is appropriate, because it is only a single sentence and we are stating that this is the view of some analysts.

Even if we believe settler colonialism is not occurring in Kashmir, I would advise us to seek guidance in WP:TRUTH. I believe the WP:TRUSTMEBRO advice is prescient here. Wikipedious1 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I have bold-faced my "grievance" for you: But none of them presents any evidence of "settler colonialism" as having occurred. If any of them presents such evidence please show it. That is all you need to do. There is no argument to be made, and no WP:WALLOFTEXT needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could expound on why you think it's relevant that they present evidence for whether it's occurring or not. The disputed sentence is not stating that settler colonialism is occurring.

The disputed sentence is, Some Kashmiris, alongside numerous Indian and foreign commentators and academics, have described these policies as "settler colonialism". The sentence only states that some analysts have described the situation, especially the 2019 revocation, as an extension of settler colonialism. To me this sentence, trimmed (less emphasis on "numerous commentators") and pared with a mention of the military crackdown surrounding the revocation, is completely appropriate and due in terms of weight and proportionality with the rest of the background. There is no need to pore over the evidence presented in each source to litigate whether settler colonialism is occurring in Kashmir. It is enough that some experts are stating that it is occurring and escalated with the 2019 revocation, and reliable sources are reporting on these analyses, so we can acknowledge this viewpoint in the background.

I believe that the settler colonial theory, as discussed by analysts, commentators, journalists, and at least one professor, in journals, books, and RS, has enough coverage to be included in the article. Wikipedious1 (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

None of these sources have any substance. It is all vague fluff. There is no evidence. No facts. Just their prejudices. WP:VNOTSUFF.

Settler colonialism is a pretty well-defined process. Since you have put a blue link to the page, you should go and read it. You can't just bandy it about just because you feel like it.

2019 revocation is not settler colonialism. It is just integration. 500 other princely states have been integrated into India exactly the same way. Similar integration has also happened in Pakistan. What you are saying is absurd. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

There's clearly a confusion somewhere. Why does it matter whether there's hard evidence or not? Again from my previous response:

I would appreciate it if you could expound on why you think it's relevant that they present evidence for whether [settler colonialism] is occurring or not. The disputed sentence is not stating that settler colonialism is occurring.

You are doubling down on the specifics of the evidence that the sources present, without clarifying why that's even important or relevant here. In order to help resolve this dispute, I am again asking you to please expound on why you personally think that this is relevant or important here.

The disputed content boils down to, Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism. There are 8 sources to back this claim, which present the views of several different journalists, analysts, and a professor who advance this opinion.

The disputed content is not India is perpetrating settler colonialism in Kashmir.

Do you agree with this, and that there is a fundamental difference between the two claims? Or do you view the claims as equivalent?

We are not litigating whether Indian settler colonialism is occurring in Kashmir, and indeed that is something for articles like the settler colonialism article. For this particular disputed content and its sources, we should litigate whether some analysts have described the situation as settler colonialism, because that is the only claim being made here, so finding sources and reporting of analysts describing the situation as settler colonialism is what's relevant.

Per WP:TRUTH (my emphasis), Wikipedia's articles should be intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject.

This is a significant view on this subject. Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:REHASH (my emphasis): If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don't simply repeat the same ones.

Per WP:ICANTHEARYOU: Stop writing, listen, and consider what the others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with".

I would appreciate it if you could make an effort to see my side here and find points that we can agree with. Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am afralid REHASH is what you are doing. Read WP:VNOTSUFF again. That is the policy that applies here. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate why the material should be included.

If some analysts have said it, so what? Why should we care? You are supposed to have read the articles, understood what they are actually saying, and come up with an accurate summary. There is no evidence of any of that either. For all I know, you might have just googled for "settler colonialism", come up with a bunch of hits and started claiming that it should be included in Wikipedia. That is not how it works.

A lot of fake propaganda gets published about Kashmir since it is a high-profile subject. It is unclear if the people writing it, or reviewing it know anything about anything. I just wrote earlier some nonsense about Indian constitution claimed by a supposed historian, published in Deutshe Welle. The same article also claims that they are 2.8 million migrant workers in Kashmir and all of them now qualify for what people are calling "settler colonialism". Well, I have checked 2011 census, and there are only about 100,000. Here is Kashmif Life,saying exactly the same thing. They inflated the figure by a factor of 20!

I will be damned if I allow such fake propaganda to be included in Wikipedia, especially because it is the same propaganda that the terrorists have used to kill 26 innocent people and brought the subcontinent to the brink of a nuclear war. Bring real information if you have it, and quit arguing. Wikipedia is not a debating shop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Please remember that the claim is Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism, with the context being the 2019 revocation. The claim is not India is committing settler colonialism. These are 2 fundamentally different claims. All that is needed to include Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism is RS reporting on analysts describing the situation as settler colonialism.

In doing research on the subject I found this article from the Associated Press which states that

• For almost a century, no outsider was allowed to buy land and property in Indian-controlled Kashmir. That changed Aug. 5 last year when India’s Hindu nationalist government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi stripped the Himalayan state’s semi-autonomous powers and downgraded it to a federally governed territory. Under a new law, authorities have begun issuing “domicile certificates” to Indians and non-residents, entitling them to residency rights and government jobs. Many Kashmiris view the move as the beginning of settler colonialism aimed at engineering a demographic change in India’s only Muslim-majority region.

Is the Associated Press also misinformation and propaganda used by terrorists? In fact the Associated Press is cited under WP:NEWSORG as an example of an agency "responsible for accuracy".

I also found this article from PBS, which is RS, seems to have originally been published by AP, which states

• Experts say the meeting is meant to ward off mounting criticism at home and abroad after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government in August 2019 downgraded the region’s status, split it into two federal territories — Ladakh and Jammu-Kashmir — and removed inherited protections on land and jobs for the local population. Since then, Indian authorities have imposed a slew of administrative changes through new laws, often drafted by bureaucrats, that triggered resentment and anger as many likened the moves to the beginning of settler colonialism. Modi has called the changes overdue and necessary to foster economic development and fully integrate Kashmir with India.

I found this article from AP which states that

• Tensions flared in the region in 2019 after New Delhi stripped Kashmir’s semi-autonomy, scrapped its statehood and removed inherited protections on land and jobs. Authorities have since brought a slew of new laws, which many critics and Kashmiris liken to the beginning of settler colonialism.

I found this article from Al Jazeera (RS) which states that

• In August 2019, India revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status, clamped curfews and communication blackouts and arrested thousands, sparking outrage and economic ruin. Since then, authorities have brought in a slew of laws and implemented policies that locals and critics view as part of India’s “settler colonialism project” in the volatile region.

This article from CBC, originally pubb'ed by AP, states

• Critics have already likened the proposed new arrangement of Kashmir to the West Bank or Tibet, with settlers — armed or civilian — living in guarded compounds among disenfranchised locals. "The decision [to split the region] will reduce Kashmir to a colony," said A.G. Noorani, a constitutional expert who has written extensively about Kashmir, including the 2011 book Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir. Noorani said splitting the region into federal territories will "divide Kashmir from the rest of the country and Kashmiris will oppose the Hindu feeling in the region." Dibyesh Anand, a social scientist at the University of Westminster, said "the fear of settler colonialism is not a spectre but a reality, given the approach of both the government and a large number of Indians." Anand said there will a major transformation of the socio-economic landscape in Kashmir, where Hindu Indian settlers will be “presented as patriotic pioneers braving Kashmiri Muslim resentment.”

This article from AP states

• Modi appeared to reciprocate, sending last week a letter to Khan seeking cordial relations. Khan replied Tuesday but reiterated that lasting peace was mainly contingent on resolving the future of Kashmir. The rapprochement has sparked skepticism among Kashmiris who fear the dispute could be pushed to the backburner given the fast administrative and political changes in the region by India that they have likened to settler colonialism. “We are not against talks and want an end to violence. But there has to be an end to repression too,” said Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, an influential Kashmiri separatist leader who has been under house arrest since August 2019. “The whole idea behind the negotiations has to be a resolution of the Kashmir issue as per the wishes of its people.”

This opinion piece from Al jazeera states

• In a strange twist, the removal of Article 35 A, which was important to Kashmiri Pandits’ own early mobilisation to secure government jobs for themselves from Indians of the plains, may now well turn the erstwhile Kashmiri Pandit native into a settler. Pandits who have nursed dreams of return must know that they will arrive not as neighbours, but as a demographic stick with which to beat local Kashmiri Muslims and pave the way for a settler-colonial project designed to transform India’s only Muslim-majority state into a Hindu-majority one. One of the most enduring mainstream narratives around the departures of Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s is that they were “driven out” by their Muslim neighbours as the armed militancy took off. This is a narrative that has displaced every other analysis of these tragic departures, offering up Kashmiri Pandits as singular and exclusive victims in the violent modern history of Kashmir, even as Kashmiri Muslims have in their turn endured violent crackdowns, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and a general devaluation of every form of political power, including the right to protest their oppressive conditions.

------------------------------------

At this point, I feel that your gatekeeping of this information is nothing short of ridiculous. I'm going to break from this discussion for 24 hours - maybe a couple of days. Unless you can present a clear reason why this sentence, with now 15 sources to back it up, shouldn't be in the article, I am going to add it to the article. If you use irrelevant arguments, or just say the same thing again about there being no evidence, I'm going to ignore you. Wikipedious1 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If you had read my original post carefully I had mentioned that the fears of the sort that you are describing (from various souces) have been already mentioned in the existing sentence, which says, Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area. The term "settler colonialism" has not been used because it is a false claim. Most people using the term don't even know what that term means. They are mindlessly importing a buzzword from the Israel-Palestine context, without paying any attention to the differences. India is not Israel and Kashmir is not Palestine.

The new domicile rules have been introduced precisely to block "settler colonialism" from occurring. Many of the sources you are citing were written before the domicile rules were introduced. (They are "rules" by the way, not "laws". No law can be introduced to block the normal human migration that the Indian constitution declares as a fundamental right of all Indian citizens.) The critics are not satisfied because the domicile rules don't achieve the same effect as the old residency laws. That is fine. They are entitled to their opinions. But it doesn't mean that those differences will cause "settler colonialism". If somebody makes that claim, they would need to prove it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I remember the original sentence reading 'many analysts' (appears to have later been changed to numerous) which is clearly not the case (also the fact that no serious Kashmir scholar has used the term either prior to or post the 2019 abbrogation). Having gone through the sources listed here, we have a bunch of passing mentions with no further substantiation, others are opeds (e.g. Harvard Law [a non-RS student note], Al Jazeera) which do delve into it but present fears rather than an analysis of a present situation ("Some analysts describe the situation as settler colonialism" is not a presentation of fears or concerns by commentators but misrepresentation of them as present fact). Moreover most of them are from 2019, most contemporary RS analyzing the current situation/conflict do not give any heed to it. We need to be careful to not buttress the claims of extremist groups, like the LeT offshoot TRF, who want to use the present tragedy in Gaza (with a corollary to Zionism as settler colonialism and Israeli settlements and the Israel–Palestine situation at large) to advance claims which on the face of it appear legitimate and benign but are actually couch their own extremist bigotry in academic language. As such I would say we need to just state the TRF's claims without any commentary on them (also as seen from the above sources there haven't been any serious ones either). Demographic changes, planned and otherwise, (pre, during and post-partition) in Kashmir are not new (yes also in Pakistan-administered territories) but settler colonialism is not what it is nor what any historian of Kashmir would call it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  And since a comparison to Tibet in one the sources above has been mentioned, see Chinese settlements in Tibet (though note nothing of this scale has been attempted in J&K). Gotitbro (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, I agree with most of what you say, except that the comparison with "Pakistan-administered territories" should not be made. The situation with Pakistan-administered Kashmir is entirely different because P-AK is not part of Pakistan as per the Constitution of Pakistan. It is just an administered territory. In contrast, Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India and the Indian constitution applies to it. (It applied partially when Article 370 was in effect, but now it applies in full). There are no new "laws" that have been introduced for J&K "drafted by bureaucrats", as the Associated Press claimed. Just old laws that were in violation of the Indian constitution that have been repealed. The permanent residence laws were part of those. Journalists don't understand these technicalities.

  I am happy to use Harvard Law Review for legal matters, because it is a lot better than what journalists spew out, but not for the rest of its political commentary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  I feel as though a mention of settler colonialism, as part of the 2019 revocation (the revocation is mentioned in the background and in TRF's motives so it is inextricable from this article) has, if I may, overwhelming reliable coverage as a notable viewpoint held by some analysts and locals, and is not some fringe theory that can be easily discounted. Even if it is only a minor viewpoint, or objectively wrong (see blow), it is still significant enough to be mentioned as background context of this incident.

  Therefore I have reintroduced settler colonialism into the article, and as concession to Kautilya3 and yourself I have tried wording the sentence so as to not misrepresent anything as objective fact, and placed it in the same sentence discussing "fears". I have also made a mention of the 2019 crackdown. Gotitbro, I'm not sure what exactly you meant by "we just need to state TRF's claims without commentary" and some other things you said. Anyway I am comfortable with the article as it is, so further discussion may be unnecessary unless there is still contention over this material, but I did want to respond to this point:

  • We need to be careful to not buttress the claims of extremist groups, like the LeT offshoot TRF, who want to use the present tragedy in Gaza (with a corollary to Zionism as settler colonialism and Israeli settlements and the Israel–Palestine situation at large) to advance claims which on the face of it appear legitimate and benign but are actually couch their own extremist bigotry in academic language

  It doesn't matter what is or isn't "claims of extremist groups". It doesn't matter what you personally hold to be "extremist bigotry" or what your own personal beliefs or assertions are. All that matters is what appears in RS. That's literally it. See WP:TRUTH and NPOV. Everything else -- the claims that settler colonialism is not occurring, that "most people don't know what settler colonialism is", that "no historian on Kashmir would call it this" is superfluous, unnecessary, holds no weight in the face of what appears in RS, and is cringeworthy.

  This kind of rhetoric from you and Kautilya3 reeks of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS and WP:ACTIVIST. I found this section in WP:ACTIVIST that I think expresses what's been going on with this conversation: Removal of information contrary to what the activists know is "right" is frequently seen. Wikipedia generally prefers to use policy to determine how much of a source to include, and requires that the reliability of any source be evaluated in context. Removal may be justified by inappropriate application of policies. For example, an activist may inappropriately claim that a source is not reliable and that the removed material is WP:SYNTHESIS. They may use WP:UNDUE to remove all mention beyond appropriate weight, and may claim something is WP:FRINGE when it is not. Minority views should be presented in conformance with their overall prominence. "Wrong views" are allowed in Wikipedia articles.

  Besides, I can play this game too! We shouldn't buttress the claims of Hindu fascists by omitting the views of experts, analysts, journalists, professors, and locals (who, for all your protest and kvetching, have their views published in the AP - yours are not). We shouldn't reduce India's activities in Kashmir as nothing more than footnote, benign policy by whitewashing Indian govt atrocities perpetrated against Kashmir.

  • And since a comparison to Tibet in one the sources above has been mentioned, see Chinese settlements in Tibet (though note nothing of this scale has been attempted in J&K).

  The very nature of settler colonialism is that while same characteristics may be observed across different colonization projects, there would still arise different expressions of colonialism in each project, as a result of different material conditions and circumstances between different places. S-c in USA, Palestine, Australia, South Africa, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Kashmir, etc all held/hold the same basic characteristics of s-c but still sometimes have their own unique features and cannot be compared 1 to 1. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. I strongly support including the mention of settler colonialism EarthDude (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

  The number of sources (most of them opinion pieces aka not really RS) does not change the fact that none of what they claim has ever been put into action and that your additions portray these 'fears' as something which is happening right now (see above). None of which cite any academic specialising in Kashmir or related (and none are professors). TRF is an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is obviously an extremist militant group, and uses the language of secularism and leftism as propaganda for its extremist activities; that is not my assertion this is well covered by sources (read their articles).

  Terming arguments "cringeworthy" and "kvetching" and 'playing games' evince that you do not actually want to engage in discussion. For all the allegations of righting wrongs, activism and TRUTH, your sources hardly muster up. Besides the topic has barely anything to do with the militant attack (no RS gives coverage to settler colonialism while covering the attack).

  We can put the statements of the militant group in the body but need not adduce it further is what I meant above.

  This discussion continues at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2025 Pahalgam attack. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

References

West Pakistan refugees

What have been termed "West Pakistan refugees" were the partition refugees that migrated from West Pakistan to India in 1947. Some of them had settled in Jammu, and they have been given cold shoulder by the successive Kashmiri regimes. Here are some details:

During the Partition, 5,764 families (47,215 people as per official records) migrated from West Pakistan and settled in parts of Jammu, Kathua and Rajouri. No land was allotted to them, but these families did occupy some government land and evacuee property, which later they were allowed to retain with certain conditions. In all, over 46,466 kanals was occupied by these families. But this was the land they cultivated, but never owned.

Lack of permanent resident certificate translates into gross disadvantages and disparities. This means that around 1.5 lakh of these West Pakistan Refugees here cannot buy immovable property, transfer land in their name, and under the rule 17 of J&K Civil Services Act, they are even barred from employment in the state government services. Also, they cannot vote in the state elections, and are even disqualified from being members of the village Panchayat under Section 6 of Panchyati Raj Act, 1989. They, however, have the right to vote in Lok Sabha elections.

Ram says disillusioned by this discriminatory attitude of Jammu and Kashmir government, these families had once even decided to leave the state and settle down in Punjab. But it was then chief minister Sheikh Abdullah who asked them to stay back and promised a settlement. But the settlement never happened.

These are the people that are being branded today as "outsiders", "non-locals" and "non-Kashmiris". In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, the government gave a breakdown of the so-called "outsiders" that had received domicile certificates:

He said 11,398 West Pakistan refugees, 415 Valmiki community members, 10 Gorkha community members and 12,340 registered migrants have been issued the certificates so far.

As you can see, roughly half of these so-called "outsiders" were the West Pakistan refugees. The other substantial half were "migrants". According to The Telegraph, these were the Kashmiri Pandits who went out of the state during the exodus.

When the present J&K regime recently revealed in the Assembly that 83,000 "non-state-subjects" had received domicile certificates, it did not give a breakdown into the various categories as the central government had done in September 2020. I have said before that this seems to be an obvious attempt to inflame feelings and raise fears in the absence of accurate information. I am not minded to give platform to this kind of wooly propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (3)

Add into background section:

On Wednesday 16 April 2025 (1 week before the atttack), Pakistan's Army Chief, Gen Munir, gave a an anti-Hindu speech in Islamabad stating "Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different... That was the foundation of the Two-Nation Theory,". Many media outlets signalled that this may have incited the attack in a bid to set off conflict between the two nations to divert focus away from the internal fracturing in Pakistani politics.

Sources: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/different-from-hindus-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-two-nation-theory-jugular-vein-pahalgam-terror-attack-101745382805306.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-why-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-risking-mini-war-with-india-2714005-2025-04-24

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-contradictions-in-pak-army-chiefs-speech-that-expose-flaws-in-pakistans-narrative/ R88r88 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

this is not relevant as to add this and conclude that Pakistan was behind this attack would be original research which isn't allowed.

We could always write that "India has accused Pakistan for this attack." DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now. Needs discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Contentious topics BRD restriction

I'm placing this article under an "Enforced BRD" restriction the Arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. In addition to the usual contentious topics restrictions, please note that, editors are prohibited re-reversion until someone has posted a note on the talk page about the revert and waited 24 hours after posting the note.RegentsPark (comment) 20:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)