Talk:Sidhra

Language issue for Sidhra

Etymology: The name of ‘Sidhra’ has been given by locals, who have spoken Dogri/Hindi. So, repeatedly attributing the name to Urdu, is a case of misappropriation of the legacy of the city. People of Jammu city can’t even read or write Urdu. So, forcibly attributing the name ‘Sidhra’ to Urdu is injustice to the cultural and linguistic background of its inhabitants. Urdu is a language of languages, which adopts primarily from Hindi/Khadi Boli and replaces its nouns/adjectives with those from Arabic/Persian/Turkic. So, Urdu, which doesn’t have its own vocabulary, can’t partake any claim towards the name ‘Sidhra’.

Languages spoken in Sidhra: Right from 1990s there has been a construction activity going on the Forest Land in Sidhra (https://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national/mufti-govt-cracks-down-on-forest-land-grabbers-in-jammu-28868.html) under the aegis of now repealed ‘Roshni Act’ (https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/jammu-kashmir-roshni-act-state-lands-satya-pal-malik-5475406/). Lot of Kashmiri families have made Sidhra as their temporary home, built houses on forest land, and as stated, they did so to escape terrorism in Kashmir. But, Sidhra has never been their primary home. So, attributing language Kashmiri language as language of the locals is blatantly incorrect. Not to mention that the very status of the housing societies Kashmiris have created on forest land for themselves is under dispute and the matter is being heard in the court (https://zeenews.india.com/india/jammu-kashmir-high-court-orders-ut-administration-for-all-roshni-act-land-scam-related-files-by-march-18-2269153.html).

You are advised not to resort to vandalism by forcibly insinuating languages of your choice by totally ignoring local traditions, on the wiki page.

Thanks Snigdhanchandran (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue of Demography

Kindly lock editing of this page as some anonymous user is making false editing to this page again and again. ImrannGhazi (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If the counter claim is unsourced as well, 'Sidhra is one of the few Muslim majority settlements', then you can't make a claim of authenticity either. Does there exist any census data which states that Sidhra has Muslim majority? To the best of my knowledge, there is none. If you are aware of any such census, then please add a reference to it. If this Firstpost article forms your basis to call Sidhra a Muslim majority area, then the same Firstpost portal also calls it a demographic war and clearly highlights the illegal occupation of land in Sidhra, in consonance with the judgement of J&K High court. If people are officially designated as squatters by the court, then their claim to majority/minority stands nullified, not to mention that no official census records them.

You should yourself remove the statement of 'Sidhra is one of the few Muslim majority settlements ' as that is a mere opinion and is unsourced. Delhibombay555 (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I have given the reference of it's demography. Sharing it here too. About your claim that it is an illegal settlement then you should gather more information from Jammu District's revenue department because not all lands and houses are built on state land. Only some houses are built on state land and most of these houses are already demolished by the authorities.

ImrannGhazi (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you have not given any official reference, rather you have provided a Firstpost reference. But you deliberately choose to ignore the same Firstpost when it addresses the issue of illegal land grab in its later publications. Please read my previous post properly, where I have mentioned all 3 Firstpost articles, including the article you have chosen to proffer.

That said, the demographics have to be decided by official census and not based on opinions of a web portal. If the colonies are made on the Forest land, so there is no question of pick and choose - almost all of it is illegal. Job of news portals, like Firstpost, is to dispense the news and not to appropriate upon itself the task of conducting census.

If the Jammu District's revenue department demonstrate that most of the houses the are legal, how unlikely that may be, then please post the reference to it from official websites which clearly state that among the legally dwelling inhabitants, Muslims are a majority in Sidhra, which will put the matters to rest. Wikipedia works through web references and not by oh please go and check in the revenue department.

Unless you provide a proper official reference stating that Muslims are a majority, your claim is just an opinion. According to Wikipedia guidelines, unsourced information must be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Unsourced_Material

You should remove your claim of Muslim majority, as it's unsourced, unless you choose to provide official data. Delhibombay555 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided with any official link to the census of Sidhra. Your source, Firstpost, is inauthentic and can't qualify as source. Provide an official link to the census of Sidhra area. If you can't, then delete your claim of Muslim majority. Delhibombay555 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided any link from official census, nor from the revenue department. If you read properly, I have repeatedly asked to offer an official link and you haven't done that. Instead you have again provided a shady link from a website. Let me summarize pointwise why the weblinks you have provided have no relevance:

1. Has Firstpost or Milligazette conducted a religious census? If yes, then on what grounds can that be regarded as neutral? Whimsical statements have no locus-standi.

2. Newspapers can provide their opinions, which they have done so far. Through their opinions, demography can't be construed. If opinions by newspapers are a yardstick, then any newspaper can make fraudulent claims and one would be forced to accept it.

3. Census can only be determined by the state. No census has been done so far which could ascertain the religious distribution of people in Sidhra. Since, you have not offered any official reference, so I also assume that there is none.

4. Milligazette link is a dated link from 2015, some 3 years before Roshni Act was repealed. This link questions the eviction of Muslims, but the Judgement of J&K High court clears all doubts and declares all allocations under Roshni Act as illegal and asks the eviction process to start and complete within 6 months. This renders the commentary of Milligazette redundant and proves beyond doubt that all houses constructed under Roshni Act are illegal right from 2001. I have covered that extensively under "Illegal Settlements" tab. So, when the inhabitants are illegal, they can't be counted under Official Census. This renders your claim of muslim majority as null and void.

5. Milligazette link from you have have attached mentions - On 1 April this year, J&K’s General Administration Department (GAD), headed by Chief Minister Mufti Saeed, asked the authorities to reclaim the forest land in the areas of Sunjwan, Bathindi, Raika and Sidhra of Jammu through order No. 496 GAD of 2015, for the eviction of the occupants of forest land. This demonstrates that J&K Govt has been aware that the construction in Sidhra is illegal, as it's a Forest land. Can illegal people claim that we are a majority when the existence of entire settlement is against law?

Long story short, since your claims of "Muslim majority" in Sidhra is incorrect because:

1. It is based on a hearsay, and has no official documentation behind it to motivate the assertion.

2. Illegal dwellers, irrespective of being in majority or minority have no legal status to be considered in the count of population.

Consequently, Wiki users have every right to question the claim and ask you to provide proper official references. Since you have failed to do that, in lieu of the Wiki guidelines, you should respect neutrality and remove your claims.

If you don't agree with the arguments provided in the Talk, then engage in meaningful debate here, so that if this issue is brought to the notice of moderators, they could see that the other party has done everything it could in it's capacity to reach a consensus.

Reversion of your outrageous claims of Muslim Majority has happened a number of times on the Wiki page and it is happening because you are enforcing your claims without any basis. Since there is a difference in opinion here, only an official link from the Government will suffice. Weblinks from newspapers have no meaning.

Remove your claims of Muslim majority. Delhibombay555 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References