We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
BBC report (a balanced report looking at both sides): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60732939
ET and Money Control: Kashmir Files overtakes big Bollywood blockbusters. Challenged traditional box-office perceptions.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/day-4-box-office-collection-of-the-kashmir-files-beats-pandemic-biggies-sooryavanshi-gangubai-kathiawadi/articleshow/90219958.cms
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/entertainment/the-kashmir-files-expected-to-enter-rs-200-crore-club-become-sleeper-blockbuster-8233961.html
[Related thread on Legally India: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/219228-what-is-your-view-on-kashmir-files ]
Contested
It shows who are LI Moderators. Little Anti Indian Thugs. Stay in UK and Cry harder R.
Both of them stand for Bias.
Let's see if my comment musters the test of troll by the admin.
What exactly in comment number 3 is trollish?? Can someone point one sentence that can be called trollish. Is Mirpur massacre a troll to you?? It is one thing to mark a comment as contested it is entirely different to mark it as trollish. It is surprising that 3 is marked as trollish and 3.3 that is in your face making a joke of something as serious as a mass murder is not marked as trollish.
It is this intolerance of the so called liberal lobby that leads to massive votes to the other side. Case in point being comment number 3 getting all the votes and BJP winning mutiple elections over the past few years. You do not have to MOCK or DISMISS the other side. You need to make them feel that they are being HEARD!!
This is EXACTLY what Kashmir files tells us. WE WERE NOT HEARD. I am a Brahmin from Bhatt community of Kashmir. I will request legally india to publish my story without censoring it. People are practicing lawyers here and very well capable of distinguishing facts from fiction.
It is a fact known to all Kashmiri Pandits that most of the local population that you see today of Kashmir have at some point of time been forcefully converted. My great great great grandfathers and people before that have over the generations transferred horrifying stories of conversions. When they couldn't endure all the torture they had no option but to convert. The biggest evidence of conversion is in the surname of local muslim Kashmiris. Bhatt, Butt, Wani, Dhar, Pandita, Zutshi, Kaul, Raina, Padar, Parimoo, Khar, Kitchlu, Dar, Kaw are all hindu suranmes. Some have since adapted more Arabic names. Arabic chroniclers have documented systematic conversions in their books.
The minds of these converted brothers have been systematically subversioned by radical, Pakistani and communal and if you include China's part communist propaganda. So after hundreds of years the enemies of India have successfully created a population that has forgotten its roots, its origins. It is easy to sway poor, unemployed minds and people who you had anyways forcefully converted centuries back.
After hundreds of years of conversion, then subversion post 1947 and then forcefully expelling the local Hindu population, you have created a sizeable votebank that may be even vote for separation (this is just a conjecture, who knows what happens at a plebiscite).
Even if plebiscite happened in 1948, my grandfather who has spent his entire childhood in Kashmir, was hundred percent sure that people of both communities would have chosen to join India. So the first UN mandated condition of plebiscite was for Paksitan to remove its forces. But it didn't. Because it knew that if a plebiscite was to happen then, it would have lost. Because every Kashmiri remembered the Mirpur massacre which is at par with any genocide that happened in the world. But our school's NCERT textbooks were so busy glorifying the Mughal rule that they forgot to mention a "small" genocide.
So they waited for further conversions. They waited for further subversions. They waited for further infiltration. A government of India study estimates lakhs of infiltrators (sometimes innocent poor people) have been brought inside Kashmir from Paksitan to systematically change the demographics of Kashmir. The remaining demographic was changed by mass killings and expulsions of Kashmiri Pandits and other pagan tribes and sub groups. NOW they want plebiscite. What a master plan! And stupid leftist liberals would rather support the enemies of India than get their own facts straight.
Point being, you cannot come to MY home, forcefully convert MY people, kill MY people, expel MY people and once all this is done say that Kashmir is not a part of India! You have changed the entire bloody demographics and demographical sentiments using religion as a weapon!
Do hell with your plebiscite. Kashmir is MY home. From my Vedas to my Panchtantra to my Rajtarangini. They were all composed here. Where were you in 1000 BC??? May be in middle east somewhere. But I was here. I am still here. Sitting in Delhi. Because you did not let me live in Kashmir. But get one fact straight Kashmir is of India, it belongs as much to me sitting in Delhi as it does to someone sitting in Karnataka. It is part of our collective heritage and history. Your forceful demographic changes will not change the fact that culturally, historically and traditionally Kashmir belongs to India...to us.
You guys are all lawyers right?? ( P.S I am not. I googled Kashmir files thread and this was among the top suggestion so I reached here. I was baffled by the trollish ,contested, featured tags. But i figure these are part of some moderation. But couldn't hold myself after reading some comments). I want to reach out to you lawyers. You must have studied property laws, concepts of justice etc..every day I read so many judgements on property law by high courts and supreme court. Is it justice someone comes to my home and drives me away from that??? Is it justice that they forcefully convert people and expel all the original inhabitants of the home and then say your home is mine now because i have lived in it for 10 years?? Does a wrong that happened 100 years back ceases to be a wrong?? Today this tactics was applied on Kashmir. Tomorrow they will do it with Himachal. You will allow that too?? Where do you draw the line?
Kashmir is the kingdom of Lalitaditya Muktapida. One of the greatest rulers of India. I know your textbooks were too busy glorifying Mughals and the Sultanate and the Britishers that they forgot to teach you about him. The more than 1000 year old sun temple at Srinagar lies as a testament to our claims there. And none of the rhetorics of sickulars is gonna change the fact that it is an integral part of India. We do not want violence. We do not want bloodshed. We do not want eye for an eye. What has happened has happened. We can live there with the changed demographics. But if anyone questions whether Kashmir is an integral part of India just remember you are doing so while mocking the blood of my thousands of ancestors. And we will not let that happen. And the Indian state will not let that happen. When 370 was removed I danced in joy. The first step towards shackling colonial and tyranical yoke. I thank Kashmir Files for showcasing our sorrows. May there always be peace.
And comment 7 is not wrong at all. I think you are lacking not just comprehension skills but basic intelligence quotient that literally NO ONE is saying its a documentary!!!!! Stop trivializing what happened. Here is a guy saying his ancestors were murdered, and you people are coming like buffoons and saying chill nothing like that happened it is just a movie. Are you nuts?
You will never understand the concept of India as we call it today or Akhanda Bharat or Bharatvarsha or Jumbodweeep or Aryavarta as it stood in thr ancient time, if you don't understand the cultural and religion angle. Nothing can be more wrong than to say India is a new concept and it didn't exist back then.
The word India and Hindu are both of foreign origins. The Ancient Greeks called the land beyond the Sindhu river and upto the oceans (with Himalayas as natural northern boundary) as India. The Proto Iranian language had the tendency to change words from s to h. So from Sindh came Hind came Ind. So Sindhu, Hindu, Indus, India are all part of the same root word and concept of Hindustan or India as land beyond Sindhu or Indus, is as old as time. And people beyond Sindhu river used to be called as Hindus.
A foreigner had to literally write a book to make stupid people such as yourself to understand that the concept of Samrat the concept of Aryavarta the concept of Jumbodvipa all tell one thing that among the various Rajas of India it was very clear that the boundaries of their land stretched from the mega waters of the east (that is Indus) the waters of the South (Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal) and Himalayas in the North, roughly amounting to what we call as Indian Subcontinent today as the known boundary of their country. He was Arthur Llewellyn Basham, and his book was called "The wonder that was India" and it is all about pre colonial India and it totally debunked the notion that the concept of India is a colonial import. Hell even Islamic rulers from 12th century onwards used to call it as Hindustan. (Literally meaning as the land of the Hindus) Even Aurangzeb who ruled almost 80 percent of the current Indian subcontinent called it Hindustan (also s we knew it in the ancient time the land beyond Indus i.e. India).
There was complete religional and cultural synthesis in Ancient India from shiv temples in Himalayas to the one in Kanchipuram i.e the sense of belonging to one cuture..one country. King Ahsoka's grand father, a Bihari by today's standard went to Karnataka post retirement for asceticism. He did not go to Persia. He went to his own country. Cholas from Tamil Nadu wanted to bring North India under either their control or at least seek a tribute from them so Rajendra Chola sent an expedition upto Ganga. Samudragupta did the same with south India.
You know why these kings did these cross country expeditions and Ashvamedha Yagya?? As Arthur, RC Majumdar and numerous neutral historians have pointed out, they did so because the concept of India was not founded yesterday, they did so because ONLY that person who controled the land between Himalayas and the Oceans (i.e the Indian Subcontinent) could call himself a Samrat or a Chakravartin (equivalent to may be an Emperor of modern times). For eg Smarat Ahsoka controlled lands from Afghanistan to Karnataka, and the rulers South of Karnataka paid him tributes thus making him a Samrat.
This used to be the goal of each Indian ruler of a small state or republic to become a Samrat of jumbodvipa. And this was considered one seamless country/continent. Indian rulers considered Indian rulers as Indians and foreign rulers as Mleccha. The term Mleccha is more than 2000 years old. So even then people had a concept of what is Indian and what is not.
We had a bit different concept of nation and republic than rest of the world. Sometimes one single ruler used to rule over entire India, sometimes multiple rulers, but don't for one second assume that Lalitaditya was not Indian. He belonged to the same confederacy of rulers from Rajasthan to Karnataka who kept Arabs at bay. Aryabhatta (Kashmiri Pandit) of India would have received equal patronage under say a Lalitaditya, or a Ashoka or a Samudragupta, but it was the Arabs who started killing Kashmiri Pandits and forcefully converting them, cause well they were invaders with a propaganda. So naturally Kashmiri Pandits can relate to Lalitaditya or Kanishka but never to an arab king. Even Greek city states, though all were a separate republic, but still considered themselves as Greeks. Actually there are so many dimensions of ancient Indian state, religion, nation and culture that are beyond the scope of what I can write. But please keep your dumb comments that Lalitaditya or Ahsoka or Samudragupta never called themselves Indians to yourself.
For people like you there are two disclaimers given in the comment. That you will not get the concept of India as one entity if you take religion/culture out of picture. And you are saying the religion/culture of Indian mahajanpadas was different??? Nothing can be further from truth. All the ancient religions of India, Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism, received equal patronage from north to south India. From Hinduism of Kanishka to Jainism of Rashtrakuta, everything had a pan Indian flavour.
Secondly the comment said just like Greek city states are still identified with being Greeks inspite of being different republics, similarly the concept was somewhat similar in India although not exact. So you can have multiple republics, yet be a part of Bharat. The concept of jumbodwipa and aryavarta is really ancient and their known world was what we call the Indian subcontinent today. The subcontintent is called so for a reason, it is like a contintenent in itself, with a very well described boundary, separated from the rest of the world by Himalayas and the oceans. It was natural for the people residing in this ancient subcontinent to treat themselves as one geographical unit albeit ruled by different rulers. The ancient Shiv temples of Tamil Nadu to the ancient Shiv temples of Himachal, prove that religion and culture flew smoothly in the entire Bharatvarsha.
Inspite of these disclaimers people such as yourself have a habit of taking one point out of context just to think in your mind that you are right.
It is pure dumbness to say NE India was not part of ancient India. Pudra and Vanga at the time of mahajanpadas stretched to parts of what is now in NE India. After that Kamrupa, Pragjotish, Ahom kingdoms, all had lands in NE India. So from north to south every thing that you see in India today was part of the seamless cultural entity that was Bharat. Even Samudragupta's Allahabad pillar inscription mentions Kamrupa as a frontier state. The leftist historians obviously say that it was outside his control, but more neutral historians have a view that it was very much under his suzeranity, much like North West Frontier Agency of the British Raj. But this is where the conjecture (if any) ends. We know with certainty that the Assamese king Bhaskarvarma claims his dynasty's lineage from the times of Mahabharata. They were followers of Hinduism and built Hindu temples. So same culture and religion. Bhaskarvarma of NE India was a friend of the ancient Indian king Harshavardhan and even fought numerous battles with him. Dubi and Nidhanapur copper plates of Bhaskaravarma shed more light on this, but that would really be needing an essay of its own.
And on your point of not uniting in case of foreign invasions. That says nothing about concept of Bharatvarsha. Stronger kingdoms and confederacy have failed to unite in the need of the hour. The Greek city states did not unite against Persia in the first Greco Persian war (they did in the second one), The Rajputs were a loose confederacy but did not unite when needed, The nawab of Awadh who used to be a vasal of Mughals, did not unite with Mughals and Marathas when Durrani invaded. Empires have fallen apart, countries have been partitioned. History is ripe with examples where local powers when they should have united have not united. That is a political and diplomatic failure. That says nothing about the concept of Bharatvarsha. When number of kingdoms of Bharat used to fight it was called Mahabharata. Brothers fighting against brothers and family against family was a common theme of Mahabharata. But that did not mean that Bharat ceased to exist. It was like a civil war. Kingdoms of the same country fighting against each other.
And Akhand Bharat remained an ideal goal. It is the goal that only a Samrat can achieve. The idea being it would obviously be better if all the rulers get united by one great emperor. That was the ideal. A state to strive for. Like a directive principle. A sort of a dream goal. A few emperors like Ashoka (by conquest) and Samudragupta (by seeking tributes) had obviously achieved it. Other times we had two or three major powers ruling (Like Palas, Pratihars and Chalukyas) at other times there would be 20 or 30 powers ruling. So it was fragmented yes. There indeed were wars. There were conflicts. But it was Bharat. It was India. It was Hindustan. And now it is Union of India. The name India itself is more than 2000 years old, and with local etymological variations India/Bharat/Hindustan has existed since ancient times and the Union of India will continue to do so.
Again the religions of the soil i.e Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism were uniformly practised and professed across the country with may be some local variations. So THAT provided cultural and religional uniformity.
In a nutshell, I will repeat again, India is a foreign term. There was no nation state of India as we currently see it, only a CONCEPT of Bharatvarsha. Within this Bharatvarsha the concept allowed mutiple rulers. The ideal ofcourse was to have one single Samrat, some day. That ideal has been fulfilled by Ashok for eg. There was a term called Mleccha that specifically recognized foreign rulers i.e. ones who did not belong to Indian subcontinent. Historians have clealrly evidenced the existence of this term since ancient times as being a clear understanding of which ruler is Indian and which is not. As a geographical entity it has always been India. Politically there have been at least 4 dynasties that have been (directly/indirectly thorough vasal states much like British Raj) able to rule almost entire India i.e Maurya, Guptas, Khiljis, Mughals and they had always regarded this land mass as one entity. As recent as Aurnagzeb before the arrival of Britishers has referred to this Indian subcontinent as one nation "Hindustan". Various literary sources have recorded that both Marathas and Aurangzeb wanted to unite the entire "country" under one ruler. So nothing can be further from Truth that the concept of India is a British import. Or the concept of uniting India was started by British. None of the states as we see today Russia, Italy, France, Germany are exactly the same replica of what they were 500 years back. That doesn't mean Russia was only born in 1991 as much as India was not born in 1947. Persian empire, German empire, Russian Tzars, French empire were all precursor states of what they today are. Similarly we have multiple "precursor Indian empires" in the past. As recent as in 1800 AD the Britishers did not rule the entire India, and there are letters of Warren Hastings saying on record that one country ruled by mutiple rulers is not ideal for British and that their goal should be to occupy the entire "country." Guess what that country was. INDIA.
Are you dumb???? That is literally what the previous three four comments are trying to debunk. The idea of concept of Bharat is as old as Time. Sorry we did not need a British to teach us that. Ashoka was not an outsider, yet he referred to the entire subcontinent as one country. Even Mahabharat has called the entire region from Himalayas to the ocean as one unit. In fact Mahabharat, i.e. one state of Bharat fighting another state of Bharat, has been called a civil war in Mahabharat. There are numerous texts in Mahabharat and in other scriptures that say, that the ideal should be of one Samrat to rule the entire "Bharatvarsha." I.e. one country, one ruler. An ideal. You are too dumb to understand the unique philosophical and political study that Bharat was. Sometimes it was united under one ruler. Sometimes there were mutiple. But the entity was still Bharat or India as the Greeks used to call it.
Government structure of Paksitan is different than Saudi. Says nothing about their religion. They can have same religion and yet have differences in their countries. Some differences will always be there. But no just to gain same mileage you have to say something. You can have the same religion across north to south and yet have local variations in it. You are not contributing anything valuable.
I wish people stop looking at what is bad from their ideological lense. They should have ideology, but what is wrong is wrong. It is apply for all ideologies. This is what we are lacking.
Any person of any religion, if that person is threatened for his life, property and dignity, all should stand up irrespective of their ideology as if you don't, it may happen to you some day, and then you can't claim that no one stood up for you.
Condemn all that is wrong, appreciate all that is right, take sides on issues not on hard truth.
https://thewire.in/film/as-a-film-the-kashmir-files-is-both-laughable-and-frightening-in-its-relentless-communalism