In my opinion, the decision on which orthography to adopt to edit the text you are working on should take into consideration where it was first written and where it has been transmitted, if its transmission is not limited to Kashmir. But even it it is a pure product of local Sanskrit scholarship, since this aspect of spelling that is typical of Śāradā manuscripts is generally quite predictable, you may still consider that normalizing the spelling will be helpful for more readers than keeping the spelling with upadhmānīya and jihvāmūlīya for visarga will help to retain an impression of Kashmiriness. If you want to go down the road of keeping upadhmānīya and jihvāmūlīya for visarga, then you will also want to keep several other local features like consonant gemination and double sibilants, the accumulation of which may conspire to make your edition less readible than if you normalize the spelling on all points.

By the way, I was happy to discover a few years ago what seems to be the first and only jihvāmūlīya from Indonesia.

https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSIDENKWatuGenuk

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Andrew Ollett via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 7:39 PM
To: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Upadhmānīya and Jihvāmūlīya

I am working with a manuscript that uses upadhmānīya and jihvāmūlīya for visarga before p/ph and k/kh respectively:

The script is Śāradā, but I was wondering (a) whether these letters are used in printed Devanagari texts at all recently and what their forms are, and (b) whether anyone can suggest a Devanagari font that implements them correctly. I am wondering whether it might be worthwhile to retain these signs in a (Devanagari) edition of the text, or whether I should just regularize them to visarga. (The codepoints are in the Vedic Extensions Unicode block, although unlike the codepoint for visarga, they are not combining characters.)