Who said Akhanda Baharat is mentioned in Mahabharat? Bharat is mentioned in Mahabharat. There was no need to mention Akhand anywhere because we were not divided then. We became Khands only when Britishers drew permanent boundaries in the modern legal sense. Hence people now reminiscence the ancient times when the subcontinent was not permanently divided on basis of religion. That is the Akhand Baharat people want to go back to. We are living in a Khandit Bharat today. Everyone from bharat recognized everyone from Bharat as belonging to the same bharat. That is enough. There is an opening chant while doing Shiv Puran recitation, where you have to mention your country, then city, then gotra, the one in Kashmir and the one in Karnataka reciting the same chant starts with Jumbodweepe in Sanskrit. That is same country. Why are you continuously and irritatingly harping on "nation state" which is a modern western concept. It says nothing about the ancient concept of Bharat. As long as the same Vedas held primacy in Kashmir to Tamil Nadu, the same Buddha was revered from Sanchi to Kanchi, the same Mahavira was respected from Magadh to Sravanbellagola, no one gives a flying F of what you think.

Kalhana does refer to Kashmir kings as protectors of India. In as much that they had successfullly fought foreign invaders from central Asia. Southern kings regularly sent northern expeditions. The whole battle for Kannauj betweeth the three major empires (including south) illustrate the same concept of ruling as much as Indian landmass as possible. You really have a screw lose in your brain, harping on the same theme again and again. No one is claiming here that India 1000 years back had a single sovereign and democratic elections. Neither did the British Raj. Neither did the Mughal Raj. Neither did the Mauryan or Gupta raj. They were ALL empires of the Indian Subcontinent. The point here is did the Britishers come up with a unique concept of India. The answer is NO.

Ahh the classic reverse google! Meaning where one knows nothing about history. But just to prove his point will google the random thought in his mind and quote the first result that comes. If you had bothered to read even the wiki article you would know that whole Sambuka thing is just an interpolation and almost all experts of scriptures have dismissed that such an event ever occured nor was it ever part of the orgininal Ramayana. It is not canon. Even your example of Sasanka has been disputed by the doyen of ancient history mister RC Majumdar. I think you are just plain stupid. Sorry that I even took time to answer your stupid comments. But this last comment has just told me that you are not even worth replying.

Lol! Please read Kalhana's actual works before commenting on it. Its geographical scope doesn't cover even half of the Indian landmass. No chronicler could have truthfully stated with equal reference to different parts of the landmass that those were a single cultural and religious whole, because they never were. Examples of religious riots? Ever heard of Sasanka killing hundreds of buddhist followers in Gour Banga? Or Hindu temples being demolished during Pasendi/Prasenjit's reign in Kosala? Samudragupta's chronicles prove nothing, he was hardly going to write that he couldn't defeat other kingdoms and therefore settled for the tribute aspect. The entire rajchajravarty concept is a northern illusion, the south indian kingdoms never brooked such nonsense. Moreover, simply because X kingdom attacked Y, then the two are supposed to belong to a composite whole? Such logic, much wow! By that logic, we are still a UK colony.

Nope, you have not read Mahabharat other than abridged versions and have no idea about concepts like recensions, that's clear from your comments, just like others. First of all, whatever you read in Mahabharat today has not been written all at once. It got added to, modified over the years. So, the exact age of a reference is not really possible to be pinned down, as you would have known had you actually read any scholarly pieces. Secondly, nowhere in Mahabharat has the Indian landmass as we know today been described Akhand Bharat. There couldn't have been, since no king during that period including Yudhishtir held sway over the entire region. When the North Indian Aryans realised that they couldn't conquer all Dravidians , they just started referring to those areas as places that respect them as Chakravarty Samrat. Similar examples are there in Mahabharata too, the Pandavas failed to defeat every one the other kingdoms that they went to during the Rajasuya. Even within the areas that they were familiar with, there were clearly earmarked Anarya kingdoms that were as different from the Aryan kingdoms as chalk and cheese. You keep trying to call those as part of the bigger whole as propaganda. That won't make it true. I can call the entire landmass that sees the practice of Christianity as one common idea of a country, but that won't make it true. Nobody identified with people from other corners of the landmass to the extent of a common belonging, which is what is necessary for any concept of 'nation' to emerge even as an idea.

"It is only when people from completely different regions came down here did the 'idea' emerge"

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.

The old Greek and even English (pre dating 1800) and even Mughal era maps where the entire subcontinent is labelled as India or Hindustan. The chroniclers which say that the entire subcontinent being a single cultural and geographical entity should be ruled by one ruler. The works of Kalhana which recognize all three ancient religions like Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism as spreading pan India and being equally recognized by all he the rulers. There is not one evidence of religious riots in ancient India. Or the map of Ashoka that literally included the entire subcontinent. The map of Samudragupta that shows him ruling the entire North India and showing his souther conquests. He did not overtake southern India he just asked them to pay tribute. Only because he wanted to be known as king of kings. Maharajadhiraja as per our ancient texts. which obviously you will not bother to read.

So now from common culture, we came to common religion? This is exactly what the RW do, snub any different philosophy by calling it 'local variation'. Newsflash, the kingdoms did not form on the basis of religion, no matter how much of a Hindu rashtra you dream of now. Different governance structures mean different countries as the geo-political idea goes. If you say that two places have the same religion therefore they both belong to the same country, then you are insane. UK and USA both practice Christianity, as do France and Germany. Next you will start saying that all of those are part of the same country too. In fact, why go that far? Are Pakistan and UAE and India the same country too? All three have a large group of people professing the Islamic faith. You seem to be unable to even use logic, so I don't have to take the certificate of my argument's value from you, thankfully.

Now you are getting closer to the actual facts. It is only when people from completely different regions came down here did the 'idea' emerge. Be it Khalji, Mughals, Dutch or the Brits. You keep saying the same religions being practised with tolerance all over the country without a shred of proof. Hinduism even today is considerably different in different parts of the country and not local variants but fundamentally different philosophies, and most of the religious texts and epics have so many versions that the contents are quite different if you bother to read about those. Even among the Buddhists, there are sects like Mahayana and Hinayana which believe in quite different things. The point is pluralism, different cultures, different religions and different ideas. There was nothing 'akhand', that's just a theme propagated by the brahminical RW, North Indian supremacy advocates, and the RSS. Nor was there any need to forcibly call it akhand. Samudragupta did control a major part of the current Indian landmass, but there were plenty of places down south, far west and north east that his rule never penetrated into.

The government structure was different you say. So what???

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 am sorry you are may be confusing with some other intolerant religion. Ancient Indian rulers were known for their tolerance. Even leftist NCERTs accept that. There may have been one or two exceptions. But yes from Ancient times to the times of Cholas and Rashtrakutas, Indian rulers have been very tolerant. Go see Ellora temples as shining examples of tolerance. Mauryas, Guptas, Rasjtrakutas are KNOWN for tolerating all three major religions of the time. So I don't know which weed you are smoking.

It clearly says that the idea Bharatvarsha was not that of a nation state as you see in modern times. But that doesn't mean there was not an idea of Baharat. Philosophically it was one geographical entity with natural boundaries, with mutiple ruler. The idea of one single ruler, ruling the entire land mass has been proposed in MULTIPLE texts. Sorry I will go with Arthur Basham and other neutral historians here rather than believe what you say. Bharat was one geographical entity and the concept of India by Greeks, by ancient Indian philosophers and hell even Mughal kings has been totally analogous to the Indian Subcontinent of today. Samudragupta did rule the entirety if North India and all kingdoms of South India paid tributes. Same with Ashoka too. Same with British Raj, even British had princely states ruled by a different ruler but they had accepted the British sovereignty. But Britishers still called the entire subcontinent as India. Before Britishers Aurangzeb and Khilji dynasty also ruled around 80 percent of the subcontinent and even they called it Hindustan. So different rulers never had a bearing on the philosophical construct that was India. The concept of India is as old as time and it was a philosophical, cultural and emotional construct rather than a pure sovereign political construct. So yes there was a feeling of common belonging from the times of Mahajanpadas to Mughals. So kingdoms were definitely a sovereign entity on their own and no one has ever questioned that fact. But that doesn't defeat the concept of India. There is no empire in the world which had not started from a small state, expanded, again disjointed, saw mutiple rulers, than again saw an emperor, than again disintegrated. The Perisan empire is the biggest example. So I think for your small mind it is difficult to adjust so many concepts into one.

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.

All religions received equal patronage across the mahajanapadas? My god, please read some history for a change. Nothing can be further from truth. There were kings who hated Buddhism and carried out long drawn persecution of the Buddhists for example. Again, kings who were drawn towards Buddhism often stopped grants and other support to Hindu temples. And yes, the cultures were different. Even the governance structures were different, ranging from elected representatives in places like Licchabi to sovereign hereditary monarchs of Kashi, Koshal and Vatsya. The accounts of the envoys and other people who would visit the southern kingdoms of Vijayanagar would show how much of a culture shock they used to get. This is what happens when you neglect reading in favour of pursuing a single point agenda.

So something is an ideal and at the same time, a reality as per your comment. RIP logic. No king has ever united this entire territory that is now the Union of India, which means that it was always divided. If it was divided, then it could never have been a nation. Mere geographical proximity doesn't weave together a nation.

Sorry, none of the sources that you mentioned ever proved that the any king including the likes of Samudragupta ever held sway over the entire landmass that we refer to as India today. In addition, your comments about there being a similar culture shared by all the kingdoms is laughable. At no point of time was a similar culture shared by people throughout India. The mountains and the oceans ensured overall territorial integrity at best to a certain extent. And what exactly are 'kingdoms within the same country'? Kingdoms were sovereign nations on their own, with often different cultures and even the focus on different religions at the same time, especially when the tussle between Brahmanical Hinduism and Buddhism was going on. Simply because one king shares a cordial relationship or even battles with another, that makes them belong to the same country? Would that make UK, US, and Russia the same country during World War II? Even during the height of power of some of the kingdoms that you mentioned, there were large swathes of territory which remained beyond their control. Even in mahabharata, there are plenty of references to Pandavas having no idea about the culture, ways of fighting and even the existence of many of the kingdoms that they try to get tribute from during Rajasuya Yajna. Clearly there was no 'feeling of common belonging' at any given point of time among the people whom you want to label together. Even much later, when the Marathas were fighting the Mughals, a large chunk of the Marathas under Bhaskar Pandit and others were considered nothing but invading robbers in the eastern parts of the landmass. If it suits your narrative, by all means claim whatever you want, just do not try to project it as some sort of ultimate truth. There never existed this 'one country' that you speak of during the times that you claim.

Are you mad??? There is no contradiction. The comment literally says that Ashoka occupied entire India as we know today, save a couple of southern kingdoms, but they were indirectly under his control as they paid tributes to him and recognized his suzeranity. Also you probably failed to read the part that the concept of India by its very peculiar political and cultural nature accomodated multiple republics in one entity. It was not a single political entity as nation states of today are, but it was one single cultural and geographical entity. There is absolutely no contradiction. Even western scholars have recognised that the concept of Bharat is a very peculiar concept in itself with very little parallel from any other history of any other ancient region in the world. So if you try to compare the western concept of nation state and try to apply it here, you will never get an answer.

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.

Not really. He is saying that genocide applies to different situations, not claiming that nobody got killed in this case. Whereas there is official record of about 200 deaths, this stupid movie has already started people believing that 'thousands of Kashmiri Pandits' got killed during that phase. That's how propaganda works, not that I am saying that even those 200 deaths are not 200 too many, and every religious fundamentalist, whether they dress in green, saffron or any other colour, should not be criminally prosecuted for each of their crimes.

Err...you do realise that you contradict your own statement? If multiple kings are holding sway over a piece of land, then by logic, it does not remain akhand. No king even in the scriptures ever held sway over the entire landmass that is represented by India as we know it now. I have actually read my history as well as my mythology, including all the epics and vedic texts. Whereas you seem to be merely peddling random things without understanding what they actually mean. Incidentally, Aryavart left out a considerable portion of NE India and South India of today, in all its iterations. Once again, the landmass was divided into multiple kingdoms and different nations, mahajanapadas, whatever you call it. Their laws were different, their governance structures were different, as were the cultures and languages. That's one of the reasons why they never managed to band together against subsequent invaders who wanted conquer all of these kingdoms one after another. At least read and understand the mythology and ancient texts that you refer to. Read critical editions of the epics, know about concepts like recension, vulgate etc. instead of reproducing lines from whatsapp forwards and random blogs. I am as far away from being a 'leftist' as it gets. However, I still read and follow logic.

The question is whether what happened to the Kashmiri Pundits was genocide, not whether it was bad or not. I never said it was not bad, just that it was not genocide. The definition of genocide that the person to whom I replied to appeared to be using would bring all sorts of riots and other killings within its fold as I demonstrated.

The Wire review: As a Film, 'The Kashmir Files' Is Both Laughable and Frightening in Its Relentless Communalism

https://thewire.in/film/as-a-film-the-kashmir-files-is-both-laughable-and-frightening-in-its-relentless-communalism

Hey this is not that thread where you say if this is bad then this also bad. Duh obviously, everything that is wrong is wrong. You are acting like those MCP men who everytime we are discussing harassment and inequality against women, start saying that hey if that is the case then we men also face inequality...etc. This is not about my sorrow is bigger than or equal to yours. We are discussing a tragedy that happened. Which had a build up of centuries. And will have ramifications in the coming centuries. Imagine when we have so little knowledge of what happened in 1989 and 1990, how little knowledge we have of what happened in 1947 and during the phases of foreign invasions and Sultanate/Mughal rule.

Good note, we are with you brother / sister. There will always be the other voice. Like they converted your families / friend with force, do not try to convert someone (in their thinking) who doesn't want to believe, even if it is a 'fact'. Let them believe whatever they want to believe, even if it is documented. Not all lawyers are good lawyers. Not all judges are unbiased.

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.

He is clealry comparing Kashmir Files to the dumb threads on Kardashians and Ananya Pandey. Kashmir is an important issue and Kahsmir Files discussions are directly linked to it. Tomorrow if there is an important book or fictional story on holocaust based on true events, I would still want to discuss it on legally india. I don't get what is the point of your dumb comments.

Your comment on Lalitaditya shows your complete disregard towards history. Actually problem is that most of you pseudo seculars have learnt history from leftist NCERTs and try to align yourself with the narratives of a scholars from a certain central university I would not name.

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.

If the Government not protecting people constitutes genocide (with 200 resultant deaths), then the Gujarat riots, anti-sikh riots, and possibly many other communal conflicts in India are all genocides. By that logic, India is the genocide capital of the world. I'm not trying to downplay what happened to the Pandits, but it was not genocide.

Bhai, Lalitaditya was an independent king. He never claimed to be part of 'India'. 'India' as you know it today didn't exist back then. Please stop peddling your narrative that talks about peace and is yet full of hatred for past events. As for comment 7, you lacked the comprehension ability to realise that it was actually decrying both the extremes and calling to treat the movie like it is, well, a movie. This is exactly what's wrong with the RW culture. Doesn't understand things, but still has opinion about everything and will always create their own version of history without caring about facts.

Yes, yes. Everyone was forcefully converted and they are still retaining that religion after hundreds of years because they are still afraid. Why stop at the Hindu origin? At one point of time, homo erectus used to roam in Kashmir without knowing which religion they belonged to. Massacres have taken place in the valley involving people from all religions. Nobody is claiming that the pandits have been treated very fairly. But surely the situation has changed now? 370 is no more, government has been asking you to come back to the valley. Why aren't you, assuming you're really as eager to get back to your roots? If you claim that everyone currently living in the valley has been brainwashed, what's to stop others from claiming that those who have left the valley (a minuscule number in comparison) have been brainwashed too?

No, you are completely off the mark. I never claimed that the massacre never happened. I merely said that the movie doesn't show the reality and all its nuances like a documentary does. Therefore it is stupid on the part of both sides to either swear by it instead of relying on actually verifiable historical accounts and facts, or to crucify it saying that it is propaganda. In addition, the political agenda in making it the most popular film of all times, offering tax breaks, additional perks for watching it, is just cringe. Movies like Shikaara have been made earlier, discussing similar issues too. That was actually based on official narratives written by stakeholders. It never received this kind of 'official' support, because it did not match the dominant political narrative. This movie is just being used as a tool of manipulation, and idiots all over the country are allowing themselves to be so manipulated despite knowing that.

Yes it is not a documentary and obviously it is following a script but the story has been built around real historical facts and events (it is not a Phd Thesis that it will give you citations everywhere, still kudos to the director for using actual news paper cuttings and citing real historical works in certain emotional speeches of the actors). The plot of using a family to portray the hardships is there so that the audience can relate to the pain those people must have gone through. What you are saying is akin to saying that as War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is a fictional work so French invasion of Russia never happened or since Michael Bay's Peal Harbour is fictional the Japanese never attacked the US. Yes Kashmir Files uses fiction as device but that doesn't mean that Kashmiri Pandits were not massacred.

Much dumber threads have been put up on legally india. Come on we have discussed with great zeal the Kardashians here! Suddenly someone talks about Kashmir and all hell breaks loose? Is this the tolerance level of the so called intellectual legal community? Btw Kashmir is a standing international legal issue (so iska law se relation hai). From international law to international relations to history to sociology it is important for every law student and lawyer to know and discuss about it.

Comment number 3 marked trollish and comment number 7 marked featured is exactly what is wrong with the so called liberal lobby.

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.

A thread to discuss the most controversial movie of the year, which is also becoming the most successful. PM Modi mentioned it today too. Some links to check out:

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 ]