Kashmir was covered even less. Remember the ethnic cleansing in the 90s?
>an estimated 20,000–100,000 Muslims were massacred.
yes. you are right. i do remember displacement but it does not hold a candle to 1947 jammu massacres. what do you think? who are more important? 100k deaths or 219?
https://www.thehindu.com/news/ldquo219-Kashmiri-Pandits-kill...
https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/right-wing-exaggerate...
this article in the print literally says the figures are exaggerated
> the Jammu province which was contiguous to Punjab, experienced mass migration that led to violent inter-religious activity. Large numbers of Hindus and Sikhs from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving since March 1947, bringing "harrowing stories of Muslim atrocities in West Punjab". According to scholar Ilyas Chattha, this provoked counter-violence on Jammu Muslims, which had "many parallels with that in Sialkot". He writes, "the Kashmiri Muslims were to pay a heavy price in September–October 1947 for the earlier violence of West Punjab."
Additionally, Pandits have been on the receiving end - once a majority of the Kashmiri population about 600 years ago. Seven times at least they've been forced to exit, countless killed or forcefully converted to Islam https://www.quora.com/What-atrocities-were-committed-on-Kash... But despite all this, Pandits have never opted for taking arms in hands and become terrorist killing civilians.
You made my point.
India’s democratically elected govt has the legal right to block the internet to prevent such massacres in the future.