Different sides of the same story

Just like how a coin has two sides- heads and tail, people are double faced- good and evil,
door opens both ways -push and pull, even a story has two versions and everyone tells the
version that makes them look good. What is it about the movie, “The Kashmir Files” that our
Prime Minister urged everyone to watch this movie and several states declared it tax free and
gave holiday to their employees to watch this movie? Some may say that it is propaganda or
dirty politics and some may say it is a call of awakening and “exposure to truth”. Kashmir,
the “Paradise on Earth” and “Centre of Knowledge” has been reduced to the land of terror
and Vivek Agnihotri through his movie does not fail to bring out the horror, destruction, mass
killings, looting, rape and assault. A state where a child did not go to bed listening to a
lullaby or a rhyme but slogans like “Convert, leave or die”, “Azadi” and Kashmir is only for
“Allah ke Bandhe”. While making a movie on such a controversial subject like the Kashmir
exodus, it is important that portrayal of events do not turn communities against each other or
spread “Islamophobia” but it did exactly the opposite.
The movie is about a tragic event in the history of India- the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in
1990 during the period of Insurgency and extreme terrorism in the state. It shows us how the
houses were looted; women were raped and the Kashmiri Pandits were killed or made to
leave their homeland. Through the suffering of the family of Krishna, who is a student at
“ANU”, the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits is brought out, he also becomes a believer of
“Azadi” and plebiscite for the Kashmiris under the guidance of his professor but on knowing
the truth about the death of his family he changes his view on the “Kashmir Issue”. The
movie has various scenes that shows us the condition of Kashmiris during that period like the
boy who got beaten up and assaulted for merely cheering for Sachin Tendulkar. A militant
killed the son of his teacher in the name of “Ethnic Cleansing” and thickness of the files of
“Kashmir Killings” and “Kashmir genocide” shown in the movie brought out the fear and
uncertainty that the Kashmiris had to face. Everyday could be their last day in their homeland
or on this planet. At the same time, the movie failed to show the plight of people across all
religions living in Kashmir, it nowhere mentioned the Kashmiri Muslims who died or the
movie did not have any character who could represent their side of the story.
Communication or Miscommunication
Our words, our actions have a lot of power, they can have a lot of impact on the society. It is
important what is being communicated that is understood in its right sense and not
misinterpreted or misunderstood. Communication plays a key role in the Kashmir issue
which is also seen in the movie. The communication blackout in 2019 restricted press
freedom but it failed to curb the voices of dissent and opposition. The blackout only led to
people receiving the news from the wrong source. The movie “Kashmir Files” was meant to
communicate the heart-wrenching story of the Kashmir exodus but what it ended up
propagating was Islamophobia, hatred and Anti-muslim propaganda.
“Azadi” from whom?
In the movie we see that Kashmiris come out to the road and chant “Azadi”. Didn’t they get
Independence in 1947? Who do they need freedom from? Is it from the rule of India or from
the rule of Pakistan? Is it freedom from being in the state of helplessness where they are
made to suffer because of the dirty politics of two nations? In reality, the freedom that they
are demanding for is freedom from constant fear of losing someone they know or themselves
in this game, freedom from the arbitrary arrests, deaths, destruction, disappearances. They
need freedom from the insurgency and terrorism and from the violation of their fundamental
rights. They have the right to live a life with dignity and the government who is the
“messiah” of the people needs to ensure that they are given their due diligence.
Blame Game
We see a blame game in the movie and also in reality, the BJP blames the Congress for the
genocide, Congress blames the BJP and RSS, some blame VP Singh and others blame
Pakistan for funding the separationist and insurgent groups. In the movie, through the group
of friends that comprised of a Police Officer, civil servant, journalist, doctor and a Kashmiri
pandit, they tried to bring out the faults of the different institutions and players on the field.
The media was like the “invisible army” of the terrorist groups during the exodus, the police
did not do anything for the protection of the people of Kashmir, the armed forces who were
supposed to restore law and order killed more than 50 Kashmiri Muslims in a peaceful
procession which led to more riots. The government left the Kashmiri people at the mercy of
the militants and even failed in providing relief to them. We see the poor condition of the
relief camps in the movie where the people did not get proper food and medical support. In
spite of the mishandling of the situation they are applauded and praised for their service
during those difficult times.
Was it an Exodus, a genocide or Ethnic Cleansing?
The line between these terms is very blur in the case of Kashmir in 1990, we see elements of
all genocide, exodus and ethnic cleansing present. Many Kashmiri Pandits and Hindus were
killed, shopkeepers denied selling them food, the hospitals refused to treat them, the
condition was made such that the Kashmiri Pandits were only trying to survive. They were
forced to leave; they became refugees in their own homeland. The insurgent groups spread
hatred against the Hindus and wanted to cleanse the state of the Hindu Population. Children
in school were brainwashed and told that Kashmir is a separate country and taught how
Hindus are a disgrace and should be expelled from Kashmir. It was targeted towards a
community but they took the lives of people who they claim to be their own too. Everyone
while describing the incident that took place in Kashmir in 1990 uses the term that serves
their interests and supports their story.
JNU and its one-sided depiction
Krishna, is a student from a renowned university, ANU whose present-day resemblance is the
“Jawaharlal Nehru University”, the university is not shown in a good light. The movie
defames the University and depicts that the students studying there are brainwashed and are
made anti-national and Marxist. Also, that the students studying there spread ideologies that
advance the propaganda of different political parties. The movie fails to show the diversity of
the University and how it gives birth to brilliant students who become assets to the nation and
who go on to contribute greatly in the country’s development and growth.
Justice for the Kashmiri Pandits and Article 370
In the movie Pushkar Pandit, Krishna’s grandfather calls for removal of article 370 but they
did not get justice even after that, what followed the removal was military lockdown, Internet
ban, heightened security, repression of journalism and communal tension. There has been
development in the field of education, infrastructure and healthcare, even reduction in
violence and terrorism but the Kashmiri Pandits still did not get justice. Making a movie does
not mean justice has been given, when there was a time where the Kashmiris did not even
have 4G network to watch the movie.

People after watching the movie left the hall with different sentiments, some were disturbed
by the visual and brutal representation of what happened in Kashmir in 1990, some left
feeling patriotic or sympathetic towards the suffering of the Kashmiri Pandits. Some with
anger and frustration because they had opposing views on the same issue and few were
disappointed, few were satisfied and glad that they did not waste another 700 bucks on an
average movie. This is the beauty of art, it leaves a different impact on everyone, it gives
birth to different discussions and debates in the living room and make very good conversation
starters, it also becomes a source of knowledge. Through his movie, he served the purpose of
art even though he was biased in the portrayal of a historical event and did not do justice to it.