Shikara show Kashmiri Muslims as seculars and Kashmiri Hindus as communals

Does Shikara show Kashmiri Muslims as seculars and Kashmiri Hindus as communals

Shikara - The Untold Story of Kashmiri Pandits.

I really wish this was the ‘real untold’ story about the K.P genocide.

The problem is not about showing any religious community as secular or communal, it becomes a problem when you name it as “untold story about a communal genocide” and show it absolute otherwise.

I will cover some points which will get you some idea how Bollywood is rapidly going anti-Hindu.

DIVYA RAZDAN 

She is Divya Razdan, a kashmiri activist and journalist, when she visited to watch the film’s first premiere she literally cried after watching it, not because how true or unbiased the movie was, as it was meant to be (or at least promoted like that), but she broke down because it is painting the victims as communal and entire movie shows nothing about genocide, radical militants, that dark night of the exodus when from mosques there were announcements, etc. It does not stop here, when she was crying remembering her pain and showing her dissatisfaction, the secular hon’able director was clapping and saying “Nice acting, you deserve standing ovation”. I have no words, I was stunned to hear that!

So there are few factors which were shown in an absolute bizarre way:

• In the starting we can see - a letter being written to the President of USA instead of India about the exodus. (which makes no sense).
• It has absolute zero reality and 100% fiction, in the entire movie you will never feel like the movie is based on real events at all. But the way it is presented and directed is eye-washing and brain-washing to make you feel this was the real exodus and not what the actual victims tells you.
• No Islamic radical war cries shown.
• “Battani saan, battan-varayei” - which means “we want Kashmir with women, without men.” To make Kashmir an Islamic state. In the midnight, this (with Islamic war cries) were getting announced through Mosque loudspeakers and there was crowd on the roads with Ak-47. Not shown anywhere. (Yes, this happened in the independent India).
• It is focused on terrorism instead of militancy. Terror is when some organization do violence in another mostate (nation), militancy is when an organization do violence in the same state (nation) where they belong.
• Focus is on Pakistani terrorism, but how can a few Pakistani terrorists succeed in taking control of the entire area, marking every home of only Hindus and making them flee without local help? In the film, the director is busy highlighting the secularism of locals completely ignoring their radical communalism. There was a census list which was made before attacking, it was also made by outsiders without local help, angels must’ve enlightened them!

• BTW, Kashmiri Muslim helped the Pandits not by standing by them, but by saying “Run from here or they will kill you”. How sweet.
• Locals were busy in helping the Pandist to make them run that they did not have time left to participate in attrocities against women (rape).
• There is a scene which includes Ram mandir-babri issue when it was demolished by the Hindus, so a small kid comes in and say “Kasam ram ki khaatei hai, mandir wahi banaenge” - which translates to “we swear of lord Rama, we will build the temple there.”, then walks in one peaceful who says “hume torhna nahi, jorhna aata hai” - which translates to “we don’t know to break, but only to make”. Theme of the movie is about Kashmir, so if we connect these two aspects it is saying: Hindu is communal (as per the movie) and peaceful is always peaceful and secular (even after exodus!)
• Then comes the most waited scene which was supposed to show the reality unmasking everything: a Kashmiri Hindu was shot dead by multiple rifle bullets, but I think it was also some angel (asmaani takatei) shooting him because who shot him was never shown. Bullets coming out of thin air. Miracle. Miracle.

There were many more scenes, entire movie is like this, I’d like to highlight a few statements/instances from directors and writers.

So, Chopra sir said in an interview, “I was shooting a vedic ritual wedding (part of the movie) in the Kashmir which is a Muslim dominated area, but the locals contributed and compromised whole heartedly.” Thing to note here is that in the movie, wedding shot is of 30 seconds (only 1 frame), which does not involve parents, relatives, not even Fera (circle around the fire - a Hindu ritual). We all see how much the locals have contributed and let him shoot. His statement yet shows how difficult it is to shoot a Vedic ritual (that too of 30 seconds) in an area like Kashmir, but wait we are communal, they are absolute secular and peaceful. :)

Then comes the most epic part, now Pakistani terrorists are killing people from American guns.

One more lie of out hon’able director: he said Kashmiris who were living in the refugee camps were taken in the movie, not a single one of them is to be seen anywhere (no, not even behind the ISIS flag holding an AK).

Irony: All of the blame is on the shoulders of America and George Bush! (Behold your eyeballs). When American cold war was about to end, it is shown as per movie, US was supplying firearms to Afghanistan (not even Pakistan - Pak has given clean chit by our director). Saved Pakistan, Pakistani terrorists, Kashmiri militants and blamed India, Indian Army and Hindus (softest target).

Whole movie revolves around manipulating the facts, saving one particular community, painting victim as culprits. And this movie has a tagline of “An Untold Story of Kashmiri Pandits”