Talk:The Kashmir Files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputed region of Kashmir[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikara_(2020_film) Here it says "exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir Valley" But when I tried to correct that in the Kashmir files movie from disputed Kashmir region to Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir @User:DaxServer banned me from editing. Why? Bharat0078 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bharat0078 Because you probably violated Wikipedia's neutral policy. You tried to make kashmir sound like it was an integral part of India. You should've written Indian Administered Jammu and Kashmir. Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But disputed region of Kashmir is there which means entire Kashmir region Indian and Pakistani but the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits happened from the Indian Kashmir and in perticular from the Kashmir valley and not from entire Kashmir. I propose to change it to Kashmir valley of Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Bharat0078 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main article Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, the lead says – from the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley in Indian-administered Kashmir following rising violence in an insurgency – so I guess, we could put the same as – "centered around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir valley in Indian-administered Kashmir" – here (no opinion on the rest of qualifiers atm - Muslim-majority, insurgence - but I think they add the context in full, hopefully [already] explained in the body). I haven't looked at the refs on that page, but perhaps either or all of @Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler: could help with the refs? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Indian-administered Kashmir Valley" should be enough. We are loading rather too much into one sentence otherwise.
A more serious problem is that the "insurgency" has been relegated to a citatiion. But it needs to be in the sentence. Without it, it is entirely perplexing how an "exodus" could become a "genocide". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with K3, its important to mention violent insurgency/militancy faced by KPs in the lead paragraph, which has been completely removed in the current version. Some editors are trying to hide the context of the KP exodus. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wikipedia neutral policy? A king(Hari singh) who seeks help from a country (India) to save his land from Pakistan (Kabali attack) and in return that king is ready to be part of the country (India) who will help him. I guess USA should also return Alaska to Russia if you feel it was the mistake from leaders that time. Rahulmam (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Why is the left leaning sources are used in article like scroll, thewire quint etc. which are mostly biased Specially for the violence which happened on Ram Navami. Bharat0078 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN is the proper venue for these discussions since you are challenging the reliability of an entire media organization. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to contribute balanced content to Wiki pages by using Mainstream sources like IndianExpress, TimesofIndia, etc. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time for RFC?[edit]

I have been periodically following the above debate about the lede para of the article and it has gotten so long, convoluted (and heated) that even I have lost track of the various versions being proposed and whether the proposal is supposed to be temporary stand-in while the debate occurs, or a more "permanent" replacement. Its clear that the current participants are unlikely to hash out an universally acceptable agreement among themselves, and the very length of the discussion is likely to keep uninvolved editors out. So here is my proposal:

  1. I suggest that @Fowler&fowler, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, TryKid, and Mathsci: et al, jointly or individually, propose their preferred version for the article's 2nd and 3rd sentence (along with sources, of course).
  2. Along with the above version, write up (as concisely as you can!) the best argument for preferring that version.
  3. I will then start an RFC listing or linking to the versions + supporting arguments, so that others can weigh in. The RFC closer, which will not be me, can choose among the versions, suggest a blend etc, depending upon the feedback.
  4. While this process plays out, I will as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBIPA, "freeze" the lede para in its current form (yes, I anticipate the WP:WRONGVERSION objections, which can be taken to WP:AN).

Some notes and tips:

  • Prepare the version + supporting argument in your userspace and just add the link to it here.
  • The fewer alternate versions that are presented at the RFC, the better. So, editors are welcome to collaborate in sub-groups to come up with their preferred joint proposal but, again, do so in your user-space, and not here.
  • Keep in mind that the "audience" for your supporting arguments, is not each-other, but editors coming to the RFC without being steeped in the past discussions on the topic. So, I'd recommend leaving out any process-based (eg, which version was/wasn't status quo) and personality-based (eg, which editor has previously said what) arguments but rely on reasons based on wikipedia's content and MOS policies and guidelines.

Suggestions for modifying or improving the above process are welcome but since I regard this to be an an admin-action under AC/DS, I don't intend for that meta-discussion to be a free-for-all. I'm pinging admins @RegentsPark, Bishonen, and El C: , who have been previously involved in adminnning this article/talkpage, for input too. Abecedare (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a few days off for reasons explained on my user talk page. My preferred version is in a subsection titled “Version 2 of F&f” or some such. Whether it was written to be a replacement for sentences 2 and 3 I can’t say, but it bears the marks of improvement by Mathsci following earlier interactions with TryKid. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Abecedare's proposal. The version 1 and 2 discussion is a complete mess (I scanned it for the versions and, apparently, editors are supposed to find them in diffs!). Experienced editors should know better and it is not that hard to create an RfC with the versions clearly stated so that uninvolved editors can give their opinions. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, RegentsPark, the issue is very clear cut. An RfC hasn't happened yet only because Fowler has changed goalposts mid-course. The lead paragraph as it apears now is "Version 2":

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[disputed – discuss]

The "Version 1" is the same text without the bod bit. TrangaBellam and I have opposed the bold bit because it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which requires multiple reliable sources that discuss it in detail. But all we have is a vague allusion in Alexander Evans's journal article, without any discussion of the "conspiracy" about it.

The #Versions section did a straw-poll, where it is clear that Fowler is pretty much alone in his stance on the bold bit. The Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 11#Alexander Evans under question section probes what Evans actually says and how far we can take it.

Not also that there is no discussion about "conspiracy theories" in the body of the article, as required for MOS:LEAD, and no such commentary is even allowed in the lead paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD. So, all this is against policy, and against editor consensus. It is just one editor's effort to bully the community. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a version in place for most of the month of April which both you and your cohort TrangaBellam edited 8 and 23 times respectively, without a peep in objection about conspiracy theory. Before, that, when I arrived on the page, it’s lead was replete with gratuitous references critical of Hindu nationalism, the ruling party, and the BJP, allowing the film no heft or credit of its own, reducing its spectacular success to the waiving of the entertainment tax by the BJP government, changing my edit “it has been an extraordinary commercial success, which it has been according to the box-office returns, to “it has been a commercial success,” changing the longstanding edit, “the critical reception has been mixed” the acting has stood out for praise, etc. to “critical reception has been negative.” You and your cohort may not have necessarily made those edits but you did not make the slightest of whispered peeps in protest before my arrival on this page. It was left to me to make the BJP not sound like the favorite whipping boy of WP, and give the lead some sense of a film article. I was the one that gave the lead a smattering of a plot, the editor who made the article less about the BJP, and more about itself.
Then the director made a Twitter post on May 1 excoriating WP about “conspiracy theory,” though his post was interpreted by the India to be an implicit reference in WPs article to “fictional” and to “Islamophobic,” the implication already much reduced by my timely intervention. On May 2 your cohort removed the Twitter-post-excoriated phrase from the article. When I reverted the edit on the grounds that a version was in place which was in effect the consensus version, as the phrase had remained unchanged despite nearly 200 edits to the article of which 23 hade been made by your cohort, but nary the briefest allusion was made to epithets of the overnight opprobrium. The Indian media, quick to jump at follow up opportunities reported the very next day that WP has caved in.
|I then opened a new thread Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 8#The director's Twitter post. Other editors made what in my opinion were more nuanced replies. Your cohort TrangaBellam posted the reply, “Yeah, both Kautily3 and I are aware of the director’s rant but couldn’t care less.” Later you, Kautilya3, denounced the inclusion of the collocation “conspiracy theory” to be thoroughly out of line with Wikipedia policy, but perhaps aware that you had been part of a conspiracy of silence that batted nary an eyelid during its month long presence, you added the observation, “I am also glad that we have sense enough to review our content when concerns are raised in public.” which seemingly distanced you from your cohort’s characterization above. It also made wonder what WP policy this was for reviewing content. I reinstated the previous version blessed by your month-long silence, added a inline disputed tag to the new-found offensive collocation and opened another thread Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 9
I reinstated the previous version blessed by your month-long silence, added a inline disputed tag to the new-found offensive collocation and opened another thread Please propose your edits here, you and your cohort chose to ignore it altogether by starting a new thread which chacterized my reversion to the status quo, to be my version, even though those words were not mine, but Tayi Arajikate’s felicitous ones later tweaked by Bishonen’s good sense, both of which had my support.

So, now admins have stepped in, and suggested something in line with WP policy and you attempting to second guess them, finding your new objections in more Wikilawering arguments around film articles, whereas I remain the one who has actually helped edit movie articles (see Heart of Thomas and its FAC. There are at least two proposed versions, one is yours resulting from the removal of the offensive words, there is one proposed by me, [[1]] and there is the status quo version currently in place with the disputed tag, which is might not be to our liking, but under whose reminding glare we must strive until a new consensus is reached. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you strike the blatant personal attacks directed at me in your next edit to this talk-page, you will be at ANI. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take me to ANI. Enough of your persistent threats. Please be mindful of your recent post at FPC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare and RegentsPark: can you please restrain Fowler&fowler from ranting all over agai?. We have heard all of this a hundred times before. And it has nothing to do with the issue on hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So far the proposed versions are:

  1. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate (citations as in current article)
  2. The film portrays the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus to be have been caused by genocide and ethnic cleansing, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. Scholarship on Kashmir, noting low Hindu fatalities, discusses such claims in the context of conspiracy theories or notions of victimhood. (citations listed here)

If anyone wishes to revise the versions, citations etc or write up something explaining why they prefer one over the other, please do so in your userspace and provide a link here that I can include in the RFC. Please do not try to use this section to re-argue the choice, article history, or editors, since its only aim is to decide on the opening question for the RFC, which I plan to start sometime on (say) Wednesday May 18th. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Updated v2 per comment. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I didn't include the status quo version in the above list since no one has said yet that that is the one they prefer. If it's anyone's first choice, please speak up anytime before the RFC starts. Abecedare (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Thank you for the posts here. I think version 2 should be, “to have been caused by …”. It was my error. Also, any chance the RFC could begin Thursday May 19? Not a big deal, but the next three days are inconvenient for me. I may or may not take part in the RFC, but I do want the citations and the supporting arguments to be in place before it begins. You may remove or collapse this post after you have acted on it, howsoever you do. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thursday should be fine. I have updated v2 as per your note. Any other (minor or major) updates to either of the two versions are also welcome since, at this point, we shouldn't feel constrained to stick with any particular prior proposal merely due to path dependence. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, sorry for the last minute showup, I propose this Version 3 for the RfC: The film presents a fictionalised storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence. I'll put the supporting rationale in the RfC vote, mostly condensing previous discussions. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: See the proposed RFC draft in my sandbox. Please feel free to edit the wording, references etc pertaining to your own proposal; and, if anyone can fix the " harvnb error", that would be great! Suggestions to tweak the framing or formatting of the RFC are welcome too. As long as it suits everyone involved, I intend to start off the actual RFC in 24ish hours. Abecedare (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: Unless one of you asks me to hit the pause, I'll post the RFC (as it stands at that moment) in a couple of hours. Sorry for the repeated pings, but bugging you now since it gets much messier and confusing to make any changes in the proposals once the RFC goes live. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The RFC is live now.
@Fowler&fowler, TrangaBellam, and TryKid: can you copy over your comments in the Survey section from my sandbox to the actual RFC? I didn't do so myself so that (minor reason) the attribution and time-stamps are clear and (main reason) because some of the proposals were edited after some of those comments, and you may therefore choose to modify the comments accordingly.
Lastly, thanks to all of you for the time, effort and diligence you have shown in the effort to get the article lede right. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits[edit]

How can wiki allow to write this as a notion which is considered inaccurate. Some wikipedia page itself talks about exodus of Kashmiri pandits. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus You must remove either of the pages. Rahulmam (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about a feature film. It is written as per Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is about a feature film why it has written that: "It depicts the early 1990s exodus[10] to be a genocide,[16] a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories". Here wikipedia is trying to present facts which contradicts some of its own wiki pages as i mentioned above. Rahulmam (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding spreading misinformation[edit]

Respected Sir/Ma'am, Wikipedia,

Hope your team are doing well. This article has been grossly edited and is filled with misinformation. This movie is purely based on true incidents and numerous testimonies by Kashmiri Pandits themselves. A particular section of the society causing such terror and genocide in Kashmir keeps on editing the page with fake news and misinformation with the intention of spreading Hinduphobia. They are insensitive towards the pain of the affected Kashmiri pandits.

Wikipedia has many regular reader, myself being one of them got shocked to read this page full of utter nonsense and cooked-up stories from anti-nationals and extremists. I believe your team and organization will do their own research and take necessary action to prevent spreading of fake and hurtful news.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Anonymous Avid Reader 2604:3D08:7C81:4700:1101:8778:553D:F851 (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:3D08:7C81:4700:1101:8778:553D:F851 You're completely right. I too agree with you on the opinion that this article is full of misinformation and Anti-Hindu Propaganda. I've also been noting that many Wikipedia articles present an anti-BJP Propaganda. This article must be unlocked and be available to all editors rather than only anti-nationalists and anti-Hinduists. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2604 and PadFoot2008, this article may have something you find interesting:A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia. If you know of good WP:RS that could be of use for the The Kashmir Files WP-article, bring them here so interested editors can take a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. Please consult the cites sources for further details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely considered"[edit]

The lede currently looks like this (Bold added by me):

The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presents a fictional storyline centred around an exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the disputed region of Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, a notion that is widely considered inaccurate and associated with conspiracy theories.[disputed – discuss]

This academic article from Academia.edu does describe the exodus as a genocide.[1] There are other scholarly sources that describe it as genocide or ethnic cleansing.[2][3][4] There's no "conspiracy theory" in place as the lede claims. Some sources may disagree how to interpret this event, but there doesn't seem to be an academic consensus that this is "widely considered" to not be genocide. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film calls it "genocide", not "ethnic cleansing". And, please don't bother mentioning unpublished or self-published work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ganguly, Sarthak (2022-03-24). "Study of popular methods used to silence calls for justice raised by victims of the Kashmiri Hindu genocide, 1990". dx.doi.org. Retrieved 2022-05-17.
  2. ^ Jaiswal, Sumit (January 2019). "Awareness Towards The Crime Of Genocide And Resultant Violation Of Human Rights In India". International Journal of Research in Social Sciences: 757, 764. ISSN 2249-2496 – via ResearchGate. Approximately 3,00,000 Kashmiri pandits left Kashmir due to persecution by militants. It was the largest case of ethnic cleansing after the independence of India.
  3. ^ Evans, Alexander (March 2002). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. Most Kashmiri Pandits living in the Kashmir Valley left in 1990 as militant violence engulfed the state. Some 95% of the 160,000-170,000 community left in what is often described as a case of ethnic cleansing.
  4. ^ Horowitz, Shale; Sharma, Deepti (2008). "Democracies Fighting Ethnic Insurgencies: Evidence from India". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 31 (8): 749. ISSN 1057-610X. For example, it would not have been difficult for India to make life miserable enough to make huge numbers of Kashmiri Muslims flee across the border to Pakistan-controlled parts of Kashmir. In fact, the opposite occurred—the Indian state stood by while Muslim insurgents cleansed the Kashmir Valley of its large Hindu minority. By contrast, the Indian state had no problem pursuing more cooperative strategies.

RfC about article lede[edit]

How should the the film's subject/content be described in the article's lede paragraph? Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See recent discussions on this topic in talk-page archives 8, 9, 10 and 11. Three proposals for what the lede paragraph should say after the first sentence (i.e., after, The Kashmir Files is a 2022 Indian Hindi-language drama film written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri.) are as follows:

Proposal A

The film presents a fictional storyline[1][2][a] centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir.[4][5] It depicts the exodus and the events leading up to it[6] as a genocide,[7][8][9][10][11] a notion that is widely considered inaccurate.[12] The films claims that the facts were suppressed by a conspiracy of silence.[13][14]

Proposal B

The film portrays the 1990s exodus of Hindus from the Muslim-majority valley in Indian-administered Kashmir[15] to have been caused by ethnic cleansing[16] and genocide,[17] both kept from being widely known[18] by a tacit agreement for silence.[19] Scholarship on Kashmir, which notes low Hindu fatality totals during the exodus,[b][c] considers such claims to involve unsubstantiated conspiracies[26] or narratives of victimhood.[27]
(Equivalent substitutions: 1. "a 1990s exodus" for "the 1990s exodus;" 2. "hushed up" for "kept from being widely known;" 3. "kept from getting widely known" for "kept from being widely known;" 4. "conspiracy of silence" for "tacit agreement for silence." You may then vote: Proposal B, sub – and –, etc.
Note: The citations and their long quotes are there to aid the participants in their evaluations, not for inclusion in the article in that form. They are also meant to demonstrate that even if Proposal B does not necessarily summarize pre-existing text in the main body, it can be easily expanded into the main body, with citations.)

Proposal C

The film presents a dramatisation[28][29] centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir. It depicts the early 1990s exodus to be a genocide, hushed up by a conspiracy of silence.[8][14]

Survey[edit]

Note Please refrain from having threaded discussions in this section and be aware that the article and talkpage are subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the second sentence in this proposal may or may not conform to some general preferences in WP:FILMLEAD, in the instance of a highly controversial movie—the subject of recent or current bans in several countries, calls for bans in India, and descriptions in the media as a potential powder keg—the sentence's countervailing presence immediately after, and not later in the lead, is important for neutrality.
  • The other proposals at the moment of writing (22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)) equate an exodus with genocide, which seems to be somewhat confusing, as an exodus is undertaken by those whose migration defines it, whereas genocide befalls those on whom it is perpetrated. Also, a film is of necessity a dramatization
  • I will not be participating further in this RfC, but wanted to acknowledge the help of many Wikipedia editors, whom I shall not name, allowing them the privilege of doing so themselves if they wish. I also wish to thank the other participants and especially the Wikipedia administrators for going the extra mile to make it possible. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal B as it gives a more cautiously phrased summary, using accurate academic references to Kashmir history for those particular events; the other proposals seem less careful, with too much sourcing to hyped media headlines. Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal A. WP:FILMLEAD asks us to summarise "the general premise of the film", which is clearly that there was a "genocide" (not "ethnic cleansing"). Our NPOV mission requires us to immediately counter it by what the scholars say. Any further elaboration has to wait to a later paragraph or the "Historical accuracy" section of the article. The "fictional storyline" phrase is also important because they film made a hue and cry about depicting real events, which is not exactly true as explained in the Political messaging and historical accuracy section.
I am opposed to Proposal C because it does not satisfy the NPOV mission. I am also opposed to the Proposal B because it ties itself in too many knots with plenty of WP:SYNTHESIS, especially in trying to bring in "conspiracies". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C
  • Any of the Proposal B's equivalent substitutions, plus to have been caused by a genocide for to be a genocide, and any other minor grammatical or stylistic changes are not contentious, and, at least to me, acceptable for Proposal C too.
  • My opinion on the contentious issues are: (a) WP:FILMLEAD is a guideline, bypassing it to include criticism in the first paragraph simply because of a controversy is not neutral. It wasn't done for other controversial or historically inaccurate films in recent memory (e.g. Cuties, 300 (film)), and it shouldn't be done here either.
  • (b) Calling claims of genocide a "conspiracy theory" is not supported by the sources cited, and in my opinion is borderline synthesis.
  • (c) Drama films based on historical events, even if historically inaccurate and with artistic liberties taken, as they usually are, to follow a fictional character, are described as fictionalised or dramatised in the lead in Wikipedia articles. "Fictional storyline" is not suitable wording for the lead. See e.g. Titanic (1997 film). regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal A (invited by the bot) With the caveat that I don't have the 30 wiki minutes to thoroughly learn all of this. My first (but complex) choice would very strong attribution throughout, prefacing each thing with "the film portrays ......" But "A" is the simple solution with the blanket "fiction" statement. "B" is terrible, it is written in a way that (probably inadvertently) claims, in the voice of Wikipedia that the fictional items are factual. North8000 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C >~ Proposal A >>> Proposal B: WP:FILMLEAD does not suggest to critique the content, right at the second line of the lead though I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir, and the intense criticism it has received on grounds of being a propaganda film. I am also inclined to think that dramatisation, as suggested in C, is a better word choice.
    Johnbod once remarked that 5 references on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble. This is exemplified in Proposal B: whoever has used the word conspiracy in describing any facet of the exodus has been cited (Duschinki (2018), being the prime example) to support a blunt sentence; Balcerowicz (2022) and Chowdhari (2019) does not have anything on conspiracy theories (casting severe doubts and/or flat rejection of ethnic cleansing claims etc. does not a conspiracy theory make) etc. That being said, I appreciate Version B's emphasis on the low fatality count etc. and esp. the part about politics of victimhood - they belong in the lead but not in the second line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal B because it details the mainstream view. I can tolerate proposal A, but I have strong reservations against Proposal C. First para of the lead summarizes lead. The first para should put the mainstream view strongly. I also believe that the lead should mention the fact that the film makers applied for the certification as a drama movie and never called it documentary etc. Source: "The Kashmir Files is a 'drama' movie: censor board in RTI reply". The Indian Express. 7 April 2022. Retrieved 9 April 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C is by far the best. Strongly oppose Proposal B - it is way off the mark, five citations and only one supports the "conspiracy" claim. The rest simply just dispute the claims, which is different from calling it a conspiracy theory. Borderline synth, as noted by User:TryKid.
Proposal A is still inconsistent with WP:FILMLEAD , controversies go in later in the lead, where this has already been covered adequately. Option C is the cleanest and most policy aligned version. >>> Extorc.talk 20:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C The opening sentence/first para should give just enough the context about the about the film per WP:FILMLEAD. Any sort of criticism/controversies/historical (in)accuracies should go in the succeeding paragraphs. The aim should be to achieve a well-balanced lead per NPOV, not stuffing everything possible in the opening line -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C: It is the most appropriate proposal out of the four. The film is not entirely fictional, and 'dramatisation' seems suitable. It plainly depicts what the film is about. Any differeces in opinion or any opposition can be mentioned later. Agree with the rational presented by TryKid. And I also oppose the usage of Indian-administered Kashmir, which can maybe be called Jammu & Kashmir. Kpddg (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal C >~ Proposal D Proposal C is the best among A,B,C as option C is a brief neutral description consistent as per WP:FILMLEAD using NPOV words such as dramatisation, and avoiding controversies in the lead paragraph. Next, I prefer, Proposal D (in Discussion Section), which follows standard non-controversial WP:FILMLEAD and simple NPOV summary similar to most other Wiki movie pages (below 2 examples) {Controversial critique of genocide issue should not be in the first paragraph as per WP:FILMLEAD} Jhy.rjwk (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haider is a 2014 Indian drama film written, produced and directed by Vishal Bhardwaj, co-produced by Siddharth Roy Kapur, and co-written by Basharat Peer. It stars Shahid Kapoor and Tabu in the lead roles with Kay Kay Menon and Shraddha Kapoor in supporting roles and Irrfan Khan in an extended cameo.

Mission Kashmir is a 2000 Indian Hindi-language action thriller directed and produced by Vidhu Vinod Chopra. Starring an ensemble cast of Sanjay Dutt, Hrithik Roshan, Preity Zinta, Sonali Kulkarni and Jackie Shroff, its screenplay was written by Suketu Mehta.

Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment: The Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) defines dramatization as a play or film adapted from a novel or depicting a particular incident, giving the example the film is a dramatization of a true story. That is the sense I had in mind, and which I think I've seen used in many other Wikipedia articles too. I gather that not all films are dramatizations in this sense; most of them are original works not adapted from any novel or depicting any real-life incidents. Based on the definitions of fictionalisation in A Dictionary of Media Communication (3 ed.), 1. The transformation of actual happenings into fictional form; to represent real people or events in the manner of fiction and as if they were fictional: as in fictionalizing a biography. 2. A pejorative term for an overindulgence in dramatic licence. 3. A narrative based partly or wholly on fact but written as if it were fiction. Films and broadcast dramas of this kind often bear the label ‘based on a true story’., it also seemed like a good fit, though I couldn't find proper sources using it for the film. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 22:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @North8000: That I have averred not to participate further in the RFC is not a carte blanche for participants to at first offer the excuse of lacking the time to learn about the issues, but sallying forth nonetheless to misinterpreting the issues, and, in your instance, arriving at two binaries "fictional" and "factual" with no shades of meaning between. To "portray," in a transferred or extended sense, is to depict, imagine, picture, or represent. In no clause, phrase, or word of the first sentence in Version B is there an implication of factuality or for that matter of the fictional; the sentence sidesteps those issues as the information to judge either is not granted us. This is all I have to say. I will ignore your judgment of "terrible." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Following on from Fowler&fowler, using a dictionary as a source to justify sentences in the lead goes against the way wikipedia is written. But besides that, writing a lead for an unconventional film like this is unlikely to follow regimented patterns, since it was promoted as a type of docudrama. Taking The Holocaust as a point of reference (even if it clearly isn't comparable), the docudrama Schindler's List was not well received by the director of Shoah; while in Poland, there were negative reactions to the 9-hour-long documentary. The reception and historical accuracy of The Kashmir Files share some of the problems with these two other films. Mathsci (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TryKid: Is there any particular reason about why you introduce the qualifier early 1990s in the second line? It is already in the first line. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version A has another important bit: Agnihotri did portray not only the exodus as a genocide but also the events that lead to it. You might like to incorporate the information in your version. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The qualifier is an copy-paste artifact I missed to clean up after Shouldn't be too messy to make the minor grammatical change now, I'll change it.
  • I was hesitant as the sources only explicitly say the Exodus or the "events during the insurgency" (which continued after the Exodus) were depicted to be a genocide. I haven't watched the film and don't know if it compresses/changes all the events that happened after the Exodus to be before it, or leaves them in the right order while also depicting them as part of genocide. The events leading up to construction is a more sensible construction though, I'll change it, if it's hopefully also not too messy. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 06:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kautilya3: None across the political spectrum in India doubts that TKF is depicting the exodus to be a genocide - why are so many citations needed? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is a legacy version. They were bundled in the main page. Abecedare unbundled them for the ease of the RfC participants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alternate Proposal
Proposal D

The film is centred around the 1990s exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from Indian-administered Kashmir.[4][5] Distributed by Zee Studios, the film stars Mithun Chakraborty, Anupam Kher, Darshan Kumar, Pallavi Joshi, Puneet Issar, and Bhasha Sumbli.[30] Jhy.rjwk (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Jhy.rjwk, this RfC is being supervised by an admin, Abecedare, under an WP:ARBIPA regime. Your proposal is late in the game, does not enjoy WP:RFCBEFORE, and does not address any of the issues being debated in the three original proposals. I see it as an effort to muddy the waters. I suggest that you withdraw it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I agree that this proposal is late in the game, and I have been told by Abecedare on my talk page to put it in Discussion so I have parked it here. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references[edit]

Notes

  1. ^ The opening credits of the film carry the disclaimer: "This film... does not claim accurateness or factuality of historic events".[3]
  2. ^ 30–80 Kashmiri Pandits had been killed by insurgents by mid-year 1990 when the exodus was largely complete, according to several scholars.[20][21][22]
  3. ^ During the four-year period, 1988 to 1991, Indian Home Ministry data records 217 Hindus civilians fatalities.[23] A scholar has interpreted the government data to total 219 Pandit fatalities;[24] another scholar estimates: 228 Pandit civilian fatalities.[25]

References

  1. ^ Sebastian, Meryl (15 March 2022). "Kashmir Files Vivek Agnihotri's film exposes India's new fault lines". BBC News. Retrieved 27 April 2022.
  2. ^ "Kashmir Files, hailed by Modi, triggers anti-Muslim hate speech". Al Jazeera. 2022-03-17. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  3. ^ Kak, Sanjay (13 April 2022), "The dangerous 'truth' of The Kashmir Files", Al Jazeera
  4. ^ a b Akhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019,  Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
  5. ^ a b Jan·Osmaczyk, Edmund (2003), Mango, Anthony (ed.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M, Taylor & Francis, p. 1191, ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5,  Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan. It has borders with Pakistan and China.
  6. ^ The exodus followed the rise of violence in an insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
  7. ^ Mitra, Shilajit (12 March 2022). "Movie Review| Kashmir Files, A limp attempt at provocation". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
  8. ^ a b Kumar, Anuj (14 March 2022), "'The Kashmir Files' movie review: A disturbing take which grips and gripes in turns", The Hindu
  9. ^ Ali, Asim (15 March 2022). "Don't trust Muslims, leftists or secularists: Why The Kashmir Files is no Schindler's List". Newslaundry. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  10. ^ Chakravarty, Ipsita (19 March 2022). "Here are five things 'The Kashmir Files' gets wrong about Kashmir". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  11. ^ Sherjeel Malik, The Kashmir Files: A One Sided Narrative That Spews Hatred And Misinformation, Kashmir Digits, 12 March 2022.
  12. ^ * Evans, Alexander (2002). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. S2CID 145573161. My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swayam Sevak publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated.
    • Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-century conflict, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 122, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  In 1991 the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the movement’s parent organisation, published a book titled Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir.<Footnote 38: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir (Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan, 1991).> It claimed among many other things that at least forty Hindu temples in the Kashmir Valley had been desecrated and destroyed by Muslim militants. In February 1993 journalists from India’s leading newsmagazine sallied forth from Delhi to the Valley, armed with a list of twenty-three demolished temples supplied by the national headquarters of the BJP, the movement’s political party. They found that twenty-one of the twenty-three temples were intact. They reported that ‘even in villages where only one or two Pandit families are left, the temples are safe ... even in villages full of militants. The Pandit families have become custodians of the temples, encouraged by their Muslim neighbours to regularly offer prayers.’ Two temples had sustained minor damage during unrest after a huge, organised Hindu nationalist mob razed a sixteenth-century mosque in the north Indian town of Ayodhya on 6 December 1992.<Footnote 39: India Today, 28 February 1993, pp.22–25>
    • Bhatia, Mohita (2020), Rethinking Conflict at the Margins: Dalits and Borderland Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 978-1-108-83602-9,  The dominant politics of Jammu representing 'Hindus' as a homogeneous block includes Pandits in the wider 'Hindu' category. It often uses extremely aggressive terms such as 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' to explain their migration and places them in opposition to Kashmiri Muslims. The BJP has appropriated the miseries of Pandits to expand their 'Hindu' constituency and projects them as victims who have been driven out from their homeland by militants and Kashmiri Muslims.
    • Rai, Mridu (2021), "Narratives from exile: Kashmiri Pandits and their construction of the past", in Bose, Sugata; Jalal, Ayesha (eds.), Kashmir and the Future of South Asia, Routledge Contemporary South Asia Series, Routledge, pp. 91–115, 106, ISBN 9781000318845, Among those who stayed on is Sanjay Tickoo who heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (Committee for the Kashmiri Pandits’ Struggle). He had experienced the same threats as the Pandits who left. Yet, though admitting ‘intimidation and violence’ directed at Pandits and four massacres since 1990, he rejects as ‘propaganda’ stories of genocide or mass murder that Pandit organizations outside the Valley have circulated.
  13. ^ Kumar, Anuj (14 March 2022), "'The Kashmir Files' movie review: A disturbing take which grips and gripes in turns", The Hindu, The film is based on the testimonies of the people scarred for generations by the insurgency in the State, and presents the tragic exodus as a full-scale genocide, akin to the Holocaust, that was deliberately kept away from the rest of India by the media, the ‘intellectual’ lobby and the government of the day because of their vested interests.
  14. ^ a b Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (2022-03-30). "Column: How One Film Marks India's Descent Into Darkness". TIME. The “truth” that the film claims to reveal is that there was a “genocide” of Pandits in the 1990s, hidden by a callous ruling establishment and a servile media. Pandits were killed in their thousands, it claims, and not in the low hundreds as the government and Kashmiri Pandit organizations have stated.
  15. ^
    • Akhtar, Rais; Kirk, William, Jammu and Kashmir, State, India, Encyclopaedia Britannica, retrieved 7 August 2019,  Jammu and Kashmir, state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and westernmost Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947.
    • Jan·Osmaczyk, Edmund (2003), Mango, Anthony (ed.), Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M, Taylor & Francis, p. 1191, ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5,  Jammu and Kashmir: Territory in northwestern India, subject to a dispute between India and Pakistan. It has borders with Pakistan and China.
  16. ^
    • Gupta, Shekhar (19 March 2022), "Looking beyond, 'Kashmir Files', catharsis & closure need justice, for all cases of mass injustice", The Print,  What Vivek Agnihotri’s latest film The Kashmir Files wants to convey is correct in essence. ... that between around November 1989 and May 1990, almost all of the native Hindus from the Kashmir Valley, mostly Kashmiri Pandits, had been brutally forced out by Islamised forces in an Indian equivalent of ethnic cleansing.
    • Punj, Balbir (April 7, 2022), "The Kashmir Files: A tale of horror and gross injustice", Hindustan Times,  The Kashmir Files has brought into focus one of the darkest chapters of recent Indian history, ... The Files details, in a raw and lacerating form, how an entire ancient culture was killed by those who invoked radical Islam to validate their agenda of ethnic cleansing.
  17. ^ Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022), "The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India's Further Descent into Bigotry", Time,  The 'truth' that the film claims to reveal is that there was a “genocide” of Pandits in the 1990s, hidden by a callous ruling establishment and a servile media. Pandits were killed in their thousands, it claims, and not in the low hundreds as the government and Kashmiri Pandit organizations have stated.
  18. ^ Roy Chowdhury, Debasish (30 March 2022), "The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India's Further Descent into Bigotry", Time,  It’s not clear why the horrors visited upon the Pandits are presented as having been hushed up. The film’s young protagonist learns about it all from files of newspaper cuttings of the time. His inability to remember the events of three decades ago—like the 65% of India’s population below the age of 35—is a function of demographics rather than deceit.
  19. ^
  20. ^ Braithwaite, John; D'Costa, Bina (2018), "Recognizing cascades in India and Kashmir", Cacades of violence:War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia, Australian National University Press, ISBN 9781760461898,  ... when the violence surged in early 1990, more than 100,000 Hindus of the valley—known as Kashmiri Pandits—fled their homes, with at least 30 killed in the process.
  21. ^ Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads, Inside a 21st-Century Conflict., Yale University Press, p. 92, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  On 15 March 1990, by which time the Pandit exodus from the Valley was substantially complete, the All-India Kashmiri Pandit Conference, a community organisation, stated that thirty-two Pandits had been killed by militants since the previous autumn.
  22. ^ Joshi, Manoj (1999), The Lost Rebellion, Penguin Books, p. 65, ISBN 978-0-14-027846-0, By the middle of the year some eighty persons had been killed ..., and the fear ... had its effect from the very first killings. Beginning in February, the pandits began streaming out of the valley, and by June some 58,000 families had relocated to camps in Jammu and Delhi.
  23. ^ Swami, Praveen (2007), India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947–2004, Routledge, p. 175, ISBN 978-1-134-13752-7,  Table 7.1: Violence in Jammu and Kashmir, Hindu civilian fatalities: 1988 (0), 1989 (6), 1990 (177), 1991 (34)
  24. ^ Manzar, Bashir (213), "Kashmir: A Tale of Two Communities, Cloven", Economic and Political Weekly, XLVIII (30): 177–178, JSTOR 23528003,  Official records suggest that 219 Kashmiri Pandits had been killed by militants since 1989.
  25. ^ Evans, Alexander (2002-03-01). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. The Indian government figures are set out in its Profile of Terrorist Violence in Jammu & Kashmir (New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs, March 1998). Between 1988 and 1991, the government claims 228 Hindu civilians were killed. Even if the bulk of government officials and politicians killed over the same period were Hindus and this is added, this figure would increase by a further maximum of 160. Hence the figure of 700 appears deeply unreliable.
  26. ^
    • Evans, Alexander (2002-03-01). "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990-2001". Contemporary South Asia. 11 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/0958493022000000341. ISSN 0958-4935. S2CID 145573161. Most KPs believe that they were forced out of the Kashmir Valley; whether by Pakistan and the militant groups it backed, or by Kashmiri Muslims as a community. Representing the latter variant, Pyarelal Kaul contends that the Pandit departure was a clear case of communal intimidation by Muslims, designed to expel Hindus from the Valley. Mosques 'were used as warning centres. Threatening the Hindus and conveying to them what terrorists and many Muslims of Kashmir wanted to achieve. ... My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swayam Sevak publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated.
    • Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-century conflict, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, p. 122, ISBN 978-0-300-25687-1,  In 1991 the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the movement’s parent organisation, published a book titled Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir.<Footnote 38: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir (Delhi: Suruchi Prakashan, 1991).> It claimed among many other things that at least forty Hindu temples in the Kashmir Valley had been desecrated and destroyed by Muslim militants. In February 1993 journalists from India’s leading newsmagazine sallied forth from Delhi to the Valley, armed with a list of twenty-three demolished temples supplied by the national headquarters of the BJP, the movement’s political party. They found that twenty-one of the twenty-three temples were intact. They reported that ‘even in villages where only one or two Pandit families are left, the temples are safe . . . even in villages full of militants. The Pandit families have become custodians of the temples, encouraged by their Muslim neighbours to regularly offer prayers.’<Footnote 39: India Today, 28 February 1993, pp.22–25>
    • Duschinski, Haley (2018), "'Survial Is Now Our Politics': Kashmiri Pandit Community Identiy and the Politics of Homeland", Kashmir: History, Politics, Representation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 172–198, 179, ISBN 9781108226127, The conflict in Kashmir was framed as the inevitable culmination of the clash between Hindus and Muslims, India and Pakistan, and secularism and fundamentalism in South Asia, with Kashmiri Pandits as its victims. In this formulation, the plight of the community became an issue of national concern. If Kashmiri Pandits represented the values of the Indian nation, then the state bore the responsibilities of protecting their lives and properties in the Valley, providing support for them in exile and facilitating their return home. The state’s failure to fulfill these responsibilities constituted an act of heartless neglect, deliberate indifference and even ‘inexplicable and ignoble conspiracy’. This moral failure was a betrayal of the nation and its people. This community discourse was nationalistic in tone, casting Kashmiri Pandits as true patriots who had sacrificed greatly for their devotion to the Indian nation.
    • Balcerowicz, Piotr; Kuszewska, Agnieszka (2022), Kashmir in India and Pakistan Policies, Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics, London and New York: Routledge, ISBN 978-1-138-48012-4,  Notably, the Pandit leaders accused the militants of targeted ethnic cleansing, and the Indian government (especially the Home Affairs Minister, Mufti Syed and the Governor of J&K, Jagmohan Malhotra of masterminding the exodus in order to drive out the militants. Approximately 100,000–150,000 refugees left Kashmir
    • Chowdhari, Rekha (2019), Jammu and Kashmir, 1990 and Beyond: Competitive Politics in the Shadow of Separation, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-9-353282318,  The whole issue of exodus of Kashmiri Pandits has been mired in controversy. Among the multiple discourses that have evolved in the post-exodus period, one relates to the discourse of ‘ethnic cleansing’ ... As per the ... discourse, terror was used in a systematic manner to ‘cleanse’ Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley. This argument negates the tradition of coexistence of the two communities and focuses on the continued ‘persecution’ of Pandits. Inevitably, in this argument, the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits precedes 1989. While the pro-Muslim attitude of the state is held responsible for ‘a silent migration’ of Pandits from Kashmir even before the rise of militancy, the 1990 exodus is attributed to the religious nature of the Kashmiri movement.
  27. ^
    • Datta, Ankur (2016), On Uncertain Ground: Displaced Kashmiri Pandits in Jammu and Kashmir, Oxford University Press, pp. 174–175, 178, 179, 180, 221, ISBN 978-0-19-946677-1,  (pp. 173–174) ... the denial of rights, has been a significant current among Pandit organizations. One of the most significant of these efforts is by the Panun Kashmir Movement (PKM), ... not only presents Kashmiri nationalism as an Islamic fundamentalist movement, it specifically describes the targeting of the Pandits by Kashmiri Muslims as consistent with acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and as part of a strategy to remove all non-Muslims from Kashmir. (p. 178) By referencing the Jewish Holocaust, the Pandits can go beyond existing frames in the region and thereby claim their experience to be unique in comparison with other Indians as well as revealing the creative potential of such efforts. The parallels also allow for the adoption of a recognizable (p.179) identity of catastrophic loss and ‘blameless’ victimhood. Such a parallel is, ironically, not recognized by poorer and less educated migrants for whom the Jewish Holocaust is an unknown and foreign event. Hence, the parallel with the Holocaust is limited to a particular section of the migrant community. This raises a concern with regard to the ability to generalize claims of genocide for all migrants. Nevertheless, well-to-do migrants are the section of the community who shape representations in the public space. The claim for victimhood that parallels an event such as the Holocaust and drawing upon the associated vocabulary of genocide is essential to laying claim to victimhood of a particular quality, which establishes differences between themselves and other Indians. ... (p. 180) While Pandits insist upon a chain of events that led to their displacement, the facts they draw upon are often denied or not acknowledged by others. ... The Pandit exodus is also believed to have been engineered by the Indian state. According to Bose, the exodus had the potential to colour the movement for Kashmiri independence as an intolerant Islamic fundamentalist movement (Bose 1997: 72). While Bose’s discussion is based on his own data and features interviews with Pandits who stayed back in Kashmir, he also draws on investigative studies conducted by human rights activists. The most notable of these studies is by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in New Delhi (PUCL 1991), which reported that Pandits were not specifically targeted and that their properties and institutional structures such as temples were not destroyed. Hence, even before a claim for victimhood can be heard, the overall history of the migration is subject to doubt. (p. 221) ... The Pandits are (p.228) often regarded as unconvincing victims in terms of material well-being, the support they receive from the state, their location outside an immediate war zone, and the relatively smaller number of casualties sustained. These qualities are significant when brought into comparison with cases of other communities in Jammu such as ... victims of ongoing state and militancy violence and oppression in the Kashmir Valley, and communities who were displaced due to military activity on the border between India and Pakistan and have been inadequately compensated.(p. 268) About the author: He has also lived in the city of Jammu where he conducted his fieldwork among the Kashmiri Pandits who have been displaced by the conflict in the Kashmir Valley. His work addresses questions of displacement and dislocation, place-making, and the politics of victimhood.
    • Bhatia, Mohita (2020), Rethinking Conflict at the Margins: Dalits and Borderland Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir, Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 978-1-108-83602-9,  The dominant politics of Jammu representing 'Hindus' as a homogeneous block includes Pandits in the wider 'Hindu' category. It often uses extremely aggressive terms such as 'genocide' or 'ethnic cleansing' to explain their migration and places them in opposition to Kashmiri Muslims. The BJP has appropriated the miseries of Pandits to expand their 'Hindu' constituency and projects them as victims who have been driven out from their homeland by militants and Kashmiri Muslims.
  28. ^ Purkayastha, Shorbori (21 March 2022). "Does 'The Kashmir Files' Represent Kashmiri Pandits or Co-opts Them?". The Quint. While some feel that it is about time that the painful story of Kashmiri pandits be shared with the country unabashedly, others point out that in the process of dramatisation, the movie strays from facts and ends up vilifying and generalising Kashmiri Muslims.
  29. ^ "The Kashmir Files box office collection day 7: Vivek Agnihotri's film hours away from crossing Rs 100 crore mark". The Indian Express. 18 March 2022. While some have praised its brutal dramatisation of an oft-ignored chapter in recent Indian history, others have questioned its motivations.
  30. ^ Negi, Shrishti (9 March 2022). "The Kashmir Files Producer Pallavi Joshi: Am I Making the Film for Hindu Rashtra? I'm Just Telling a Story". News18. Retrieved 11 March 2022.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022[edit]

Request to add some information and remove some misinformation from the page 203.219.205.246 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kashmir_Files&oldid=1089045674"