The point of my account is to speak the truth, and to represent a balanced perspective. But what is a balanced perspective?

This week, the same people who questioned the merits of the post, also questioned my post on the Genocides and Exoduses of Kashmiri Pandits. Questioned, actually, would be an understatement. One person rejected the use of “genocide” for what happened to Kashmiri Pandits and posted it on his story. If anyone was unclear, this is how the UN defines genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

So despite the person’s attempt to make it a numbers game (by the way, there was also a contention on the numbers, but this document isn’t about that, so I shan’t get into it), it doesn’t matter how many were killed. Purposeful ethnocide took place, not once, but seven times. I encourage you to read the history of the seven genocides and exoduses. I was accused of providing fuel to provoke hatred amongst the “right wing”. So, get this, I discussed the atrocities against a group of people that mainstream media has ignored for decades, and I am to be blamed for provoking hatred? The plight of the Kashmiri Pandits has been manipulated by politics, when it has always been a matter of religion. Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs, Dalits, were all killed because they refused to practice Islam. If politicians or political spectators use this to their benefit, it does not change the fact that it occurred. It does not, and should not, change the fact that justice is yet to be served.

So what does it mean to present a “balanced perspective”? It means that I also report on things that the mainstream media ignores. When writing political pieces, I have made the effort to provide views from many different outlets, and I will stick to that. But for the issue of Kashmiri Pandits and for the matter of humanitarian issues (funny, actually, I discussed the plight of Uyghur Muslims but no one seemed to have a problem then that radicals may manipulate that information), I refuse to present the views of outlets that have diverted attention from important, pressing, matters for their own selfish gains. I have made my position clear here and so, if you are not agreeable, the unfollow button is right there.