Why I am against making historical Indian movies or serials - Part 1 ..

Tweet

I was watching The Kashmir Files...as to quality of script, dialogues, etc., the sophistication I find in Crime Patrol is missing. The narrative is more like an uneducated or childish person doing it forcing mind to raise questions like why is the word Pandits being emphasized as if only Pandits were sent away and other Hindus didn't matter. It also raises a question in mind if that is indeed the case, why only Pandits were targeted, and why not others? In other words, what wrong did Pandits do to irk the Muslims? Honestly, after Kunan Poshpora rapes and questioning harassment the issue should be buried because revenge has been taken for Kashmiri "Pandit" exodus. If Kunan Poshpora was not there, there would be some justification to raise the issue. Jews did not wage war in revenge. This is the first reason. When history is narrated all factors before and after pertaining to it need to be told so that the next generation understands what can lead to problems and does not start perceiving some injustice or hurt of a gone generation and wastes the life hurting about it passing on hatred to another generation. It is nearly impossible to do that much research and understand what happened when and why and how. Entire life will be gone and not everybody narrating the story will tell the truth. Moreover, how far can we go? With new technologies being discovered every now and then, we can go back into history some further. The process would be endless. It is said that the King of Kashmir joined India. But hey, not immediately at the time of independence. He joined when there was growing discontent against him. Why would people revolt if they are happy with the king? So should their grouses be suppressed? French Revolution comes to mind. Would it have led to something similar, because of which the king leaned towards India - with conditions too ... opportunistic? Then which side should India have taken to justify itself as a democracy? Uneasy question to answer. This forces people to go to period before the British. and before the Muslim invasion only to justify that accession. But that historical reason was not good enough to accede to India at the time of independence. Nobody questions that! Convenient way to reason. Reality is, if Girija Tikku(a Kashmiri Pandit) massacre happened, so did Kunan Poshpora rapes and lock up tortures and murders. Both were equally appalling sad and shameful. When Hindus feel hurt about exodus from Kashmir in 1990, they gotta hold guilt for Anti sikh riots of 1984. We showed our color before 1990, right? We sowed the seeds of insecurity. We Hindus are responsible for what followed. Let us be honest about that. Calling it as only insurgency is unfair. While insurgency is there, and large too, it would not have been facilitated and would not have survived if we Hindus were well behaved lot. With what we did, in 1984, we scared those Kashmiri Muslims who trusted us and they leaned towards insurgents enabling insurgency. Why not accept the blame? We are happy to call 217 deaths across 1988 to 1991 as genocide but not 3350 deaths of Sikhs in 1984. Double standards? Logically, the Muslims had enough time as well as power to convert the entire Hindu population into Muslim population in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. But that did not happen. There was not mass massacre of Kashmiri "Pandits". They were given time to pack their bags and leave. Unlike 1984. So political leaders need to shut up. The post is long and boring...especially for non Indians...so will continue in part two and three to explain my other four reasons.