Does the film reveal the truth? As has been the case with major Hollywood history films, this question will evoke different responses to different people, depending on how one interprets past events according to one’s political or ideological contexts. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the various reactions to Bollywood filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri blockbuster called The Kashmir Files.
The vast majority, perhaps more than 90 percent of viewers, consider the film to be based on true stories about the helpless Pandit (Hindus) of Kashmiri, who were forced by Muslim terrorists and their sympathetic rulers in the capital, Srinagar, at the time. of Jammu and Kashmir to become refugees in their own country, something, and worse, allowed to happen by the helpless authorities in Delhi.
It is estimated that between February and March 1990, about 100,000 Kashmiri Pandit residents of 140,000 emigrated, following terrorist threats that if they wanted to stay, they must convert to Islam or flee the village or be ready to be killed.
The indescribable brutality and trauma that the Pandits had to endure at the time was what Vivek Agnihotri tried to portray in his film. In fact, the last few minutes of the film, which the author watched one day, were so intense that most in the theater were literally crying. And it was in the incident that a terrorist wearing an Indian Army uniform visiting a Pandits camp was chased away and shot dead in a brutal 25 Pundits, including four children and nine women.
Actual Expression of Events
Although the author is not a paid film reviewer, one can say that the film, which focuses on the character of Pandit Puskar Nath, played by veteran actor Anupam Kher, and his desire to return to his home in the Valley, has shown excellent performances. .
In fact, for me, the best performance (I hope Kher fans will forgive me) is actor Darshan Kumar (role of Puskar Nath’s grandson), followed by actor Pallavi Joshi, whose role is imitated as a professor of my alma. lecturer Jawaharlal Nehru University, who was in the news a few years ago for urging students to continue their struggle for the “azadi” (freedom) of Kashmir, according to him, was under “Indian illegal occupation”.
The aim of the film is that the intensification of the repression or assassination of the Pandits in the Kashmir Valley was lightly played in the media and that the political and intellectual leaders of the country were not sympathetic to allow this sad situation to continue.
And this despite the fact that some honest public servants like actor played by veteran actor Mithun Chakraborty were ignored. And these civil servants, as allowed by some, have now retired, after seeing the film, refusing to expose the tragedies with their sad details due to their inability due to the Official Secrets Act.
Clearly, such narratives have been challenged by professional film critics and Indian so-called liberal / specialist statesmen, heads of higher education institutions and national media. For them, Kashmir Files are managed, staged and manipulated.
Yes, all the historical evidence should be under doubt. But that does not negate the unique ability of Agnihotri film to show and match the figures and historical events. He has undoubtedly succeeded in photographing time and representing things as if they were still there.
Why the ‘Liberals’ Reject the Film
Let’s see what these “free” ones find in Kashmir’s files. They say Agnihotri has shown a limited side; he ignored how many Muslims had died and that the uprising – the movement or rebellion was due to Delhi’s betrayal and complete unrest and wrong decisions.
The above is a sad concept and an example of their two values. Have they ever acted out terrorist and terrorist films made by people like Gulzar and Mahesh Bhatt for their one-sided presentation? Never.
In fact, if Agnihotri portrayed one side of the story, nothing would stop others from making films that show the other side. In any case, in a movie that says two and a half hours, one can only concentrate on somewhere about 90 percent of the Indians (or, therefore, the whole world) did not know.
And that brings me to the traditional behavior of ordinary Indian media professionals, academics, retired Indian officials who are now actively involved in various fields of research and so-called non-governmental organizations.
Almost all of them are liberal liberals – especially “rights activists” – who always portray Indian soldiers as oppressors and Kashmiri as dogs fighting for their human rights. In fact, under the influence of these liberal leaders, some important national newspapers have now abandoned the use of the term “terrorist” altogether; instead, they now prefer to use the term “militants”.
Modi-Kashmir files
Do you remember what the so-called liberals were praising when the Punjab was on fire during the Khalistani riots in Punjab? If the then Punjab police director general KPS Gill had listened to these freedom leaders, ruling our research institutes, universities and national media, Khalistan would probably be real now! Similarly, if we had followed the recommendations of these Kashmir liberties, the Valley would have been removed from India by now.
What is Kashmiriyat?
In my considered opinion, the best description of what has been happening in Kashmir over the past three decades came once from former deputy chief minister Muzaffar Hussain Baig. At an all-party meeting in Delhi in August 2016, he had spoken the unpalatable truth about how in Kashmir “a narrative of religious extremism” is witnessing “the revival of Khilafat” which has taken the form of Islamic State (IS).
Let me quote Baig. “I told (the all-party meet) that there is a narrative of religious extremism. This narrative is created in madrasas. Our teachers and schools don’t have such commitment or reach. These kids are trained in religious texts without context. Now there is a revival of Khilafat, which has taken the form of IS. It is bound to influence the youth of Kashmir.
“I told them (all-party meeting) that what is taught in madrasas is not real Islam. They teach them politicized Islam. They (students) get two sets of kameez pajamas from their families and these vulnerable minds are told that if you die in Jihad, you will go to paradise and if you survive you will be a hero. We should have had a counter-narrative (in Kashmir)”.
Baig had said that “the Kashmiriyat” that the Valley was famous for meant some sort of Shaivite Hinduism where the unity of God, fraternity, and equality of human beings are its foundations, which was later supplemented and enriched by Sufism. Baig made a lot of sense when he said that “Kashmiriyat had two facets – one is civilization value and other is the political status. The unique status of Kashmir in the Indian Union was necessary to preserve and foster its civilizational values and tradition. It isn’t a Muslim identity but a mixed identity. We need to build a counter-narrative centered around this Kashmiriyat.”
Islamization of Kashmir
Viewed thus, the unrest in Kashmir is not necessarily due to the so-called alienation of the people because of poor governance, lack of development, and violation of human rights. The unpalatable truth, which our bleeding-heart-liberals in the intelligentsia and political parties ignore, is that in Kashmir, the youth is fast becoming radicalized, seeking total Islamization of Kashmir.
No amount of concessions to these separatists and their leaders will ever appease them, their real goal being secession. They will never reconcile with a secular India.
The Saudi-funded and Pakistani-supported Wahhabism has been on a forward march in Kashmir ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979. Its primary purpose, in the beginning, was to stem the Shia uprising, but over a period of time, Wahhabism with generous Saudi petrodollars gathered its own momentum. Their main aim has been to establish their type of Islamic rule, with no scope for co-existence with those having different belief systems.
It is in this context that one agrees fully with Bangladeshi scholar Abu Taher Salahuddin Ahmed that over the years, Kashmir has been witnessing three principal trends – Indianness, Kashmiriness, and Muslimness.
The Indianness has been propagated by the federal forces, be it the Central Government or national parties such as the Congress and the BJP. However, the problem in the state is due to the tussle between those believing in Kashmiriness and those loyal to Muslimness.
Kashmir Files
The Kashmiriness is an offshoot of the much-talked-about Kashmiriyat, which, while co-existing with Indianness, talks of inclusive or composite identity, binding all groups together and not offending any section.
It did promote coexistence. The majority of the Kashmiri Muslims, therefore, had no problems with the Hindus or for that matter with the Buddhists. And, the key factor to the success of Kashmiriyat was the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Kashmiri Muslims believed in Sufism or what is called the “Rishi tradition” that believed in saint and shrine worship.
Of course, it was greatly facilitated by the fact that as was the case in other parts of the subcontinent, Muslims were essentially the converts from the fold of Hinduism. No wonder why despite being a Muslim-majority area, beef-eating, until recently, was virtually non-existent in the Valley.
In contrast, the Muslimness always advocated exclusive concepts in the Valley. Promoted by the Wahhabi and Ahl-i-Hadith sects, this school relies more on the authority of the Quran and Hadith and is totally opposed to the concept of saints and shrine worship. Almost all the separatists and terrorists, including the so-called moderate elements like the Hurriyat Conference, belong to the school of Islamness.
They have nothing to do with India. They have nothing to do with Kashmiriyat either. For them, Kashmiri as a distinct and proud language does not exist. No wonder why Kashmiri children are no longer encouraged to speak, read and write in their mother tongue; they are forced to adapt to Urdu.
In fact, it is a myth that the armed insurgency in Kashmir that began in 1989-90 was a result of the election rigging of 1987. The rigged poll might have been a catalyst, but the fact remains that during this poll campaign, Islamists had made it clear that they wanted to establish ‘Nizam-e-Mustafa’ (rule of the Prophet) in Kashmir. Democracy was seen as ‘haraam’ or un-Islamic.
All the separatist leaders would love Kashmir to be run by Sharia, not by democratic tenets. They want mosques or mosque-approved leaders, not any elected representatives, to control their lives. Just see the roles the mosques are playing in aggravating the crisis in Kashmir today.
It is the loudspeakers from mosques that instigate people to gather and agitate. It is in the mosques that the terrorists take shelter, knowing pretty well that the security forces will not dare enter there.
In other words, the Islamists want Kashmir only to be the sole preserve of the Muslims of their brand. The Kashmir File narrates this phenomenon, something we witnessed never before.