The Kashmir Files | Official Trailer I Anupam I Mithun - Page 8

Originally posted by: Minionite

We all know that the West is never going to fully give Indigenous people everything back or return everything they've stolen. But even accepting their mistakes is a big step.

Agreed. We see Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Azad, etc. as freedom fighters but the British saw them as criminals. In the British history, they were probably originally written as criminals. Only years later did they finally see the British Raj as wrong.

Samuel Adams, Lal-Bal-Pal, Rani Laxmibai, Mangal Pandey, Bose, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Mohandas K Gandhi and scores of other great people who fought for their land and all of them are called freedom fighters. These folks didn’t go to anyone else’s land and start blowing off people . They were literally fighting for their own land from their own land. It’s ridiculous and insulting to compare the terrorists like Osama to these great people.Only terrorist apologists would even dare to do such a thing!

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

But revolutionaries/freedom fighters are still different from terrorists.

Terrorists target innocent people, while freedom fighters try to bring justice by using violent methods.

I agree there is a big distinction between someone using violence for justice versus someone who hurts innocence. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions - in the heat of the moment - lines get blurred and even just causes lead to terrible outcomes.

We all would agree that the revolution of 1857 was a justified rebellion that resorted to violence due to oppression by the British Raj. But even during that revolution, we get stray incidents like the siege of Kanpur where innocent women and children were murdered.

Terrorism is freedom fighting or fighting for justice losing its humanity. When I say one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - I don't intend to justify terrorism or compare terrorists with legitimate revolutionaries. I mean that terrorists and their supporters think they are fighting for a just cause. But for most people, they are just causing irreparable harm.

It's a generic quote, but in hindsight, I should have extrapolated instead of quoting at face value - because it can be hurtful to others.

Originally posted by: catchmeifucan

Samuel Adams, Lal-Bal-Pal, Rani Laxmibai, Mangal Pandey, Bose, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Mohandas K Gandhi and scores of other great people who fought for their land and all of them are called freedom fighters. These folks didn’t go to anyone else’s land and start blowing off people . They were literally fighting for their own land from their own land. It’s ridiculous and insulting to compare the terrorists like Osama to these great people.Only terrorist apologists would even dare to do such a thing!

I think that is the difference there, while I agree with RTH, violence can spread like fire and be hard to control.. and it can harm innocents.. But the British rulers invaded and colonialised us. Thats the difference.

Secondly, the west has messed up countries by interfering for their own benefit. It surely doesn't absolve the terrorists, but its stil a retaliation for most of them. Many of them must have lost their loved ones in the violence and blame other countries/ governments for it.

What really irks me, is when they try to justify the past, don't feel sorry at all. Not only. that, they blame us for our problems entirely and take no responsibility

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

What really irks me, is when they try to justify the past, don't feel sorry at all. Not only. that, they blame us for our problems entirely and take no responsibility

Cant they just give us a neutral view? Just tell us the facts from both the sides. I am sure the audience has enough brains to decide which side they want to be

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

But revolutionaries/freedom fighters are still different from terrorists.

Terrorists target innocent people, while freedom fighters try to bring justice by using violent methods.

Ofcoruse, things can go wrong here, like how Prafulla and Khudiram tried to assassinate British judge but ended up killing two British women by mistake instead, and Prafulla later committed suicide.

Its not like they rejoiced in kiling of innocents. There is a huge difference. Terrorists and extremist groups don't mind innocents being caught in the crossfire. The british too did not have any remorse in killing innocents.

In fact when queen Elizabeth and prince Philip visited Jallianwala bagh, Philip was disrespectful and obnoxious. The British never valued Indian life, or African, or native American for that matter.

That's 100% true. But I don't fully agree.

I'll give you a recent example. In Canada, we just had huge protests that are still going on. Ottawa was basically occupied. Many of our border crossings with the US were blocked. The people protesting called themselves "freedom fighters" but they were willing to put people's lives at risk, stop business and supply chains, and hurl abuses or hurt the common people. People like them.

Yes they aren't terrorists but what is a terrorist? Someone who incites fear and terror in people. You don't need bombs and deaths for that. Some of these people were enough for that. I kid you not. I had a friend who was chased for wearing a mask. She was cornered, her mask torn off her face, and then this group of people beat her before running away. Is that not terror? But they call themselves freedom fighters.

I think the problem is that certain words have come to have certain connotations but they don't always mean the extreme. Like nepotism and KJo go hand in hand, but what KJo actually does is groupism and cliques. Nepotism is just using your position to get your family in the door. Similarly terrorism doesn't always mean killing people. It means using violence and terror unlawfully.

Originally posted by: catchmeifucan

Samuel Adams, Lal-Bal-Pal, Rani Laxmibai, Mangal Pandey, Bose, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Mohandas K Gandhi and scores of other great people who fought for their land and all of them are called freedom fighters. These folks didn’t go to anyone else’s land and start blowing off people . They were literally fighting for their own land from their own land. It’s ridiculous and insulting to compare the terrorists like Osama to these great people.Only terrorist apologists would even dare to do such a thing!

It definitely is but I'm saying this from my own experience. In, I think, 3rd or 4th grade we learnt about the British Raj and in one small portion of the book they called people like Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, etc. criminals. Gandhi was the only one given respect. They weren't called terrorists but how is what they did criminal? That book has since gone out of print but I bet you there are many books like that out there.

After all what are books? They are written from the perspective of specific countries.

Kashmiri Pandits are the victims of terrorism in Kashmir valley and also of the collective incompetence of the Indian political class. Their story needs to be told in an authentic way and I hope this movie does it.

Originally posted by: Minionite

It definitely is but I'm saying this from my own experience. In, I think, 3rd or 4th grade we learnt about the British Raj and in one small portion of the book they called people like Sukhdev, Bhagat Singh, etc. criminals. Gandhi was the only one given respect. They weren't called terrorists but how is what they did criminal? That book has since gone out of print but I bet you there are many books like that out there.

After all what are books? They are written from the perspective of specific countries.

I guess then they are spreading propaganda then and nothing else. I agree that the story changes with the point of view, but the facts remain facts. The British were looters and invaders who committed atrocities and revolutionaries laid down their lives to free their land.

The land belongs to Indians, brits colonialized it, amassed their wealth from it, abused and killed people. Indians have full right to throw them out, even by use of violence or force. Defending the country or your land isn’t act of terrorism. Invading it is.

The protestors throwing around the words calling themselves “freedom fighters” doesn’t make them so. Just because they think they are fighting for their “rights” doesn’t make it so.The Canadian government is will still have to find legitimate means to control them. Their people are not getting gunned down for no reason just for gathering like they did in Jallianwala Bagh or they aren’t punished and humiliated on a daily basis due to race.

Originally posted by: Nandini_goyal

Cant they just give us a neutral view? Just tell us the facts from both the sides. I am sure the audience has enough brains to decide which side they want to be

I think even if someone tried to be unbiased, it’s nearly impossible not to have own view about it.