[ blog flash 3 – srinagar ]

5/04/07 | 9.20 am

Kashmir Times report (a cached view)

4/04/07 | 2.21 pm

David Lepeska in Kashmir Observer- an evocative report, on the film and its Srinagar screening.
And Amitava Kumar’s celebration of the film.

1/04/07 | 7.03 am

First review of the film and its ‘celebratory’ screening at Srinagar in Greater Kashmir and a urdu review in Kashmir Uzma
also a recently published review in The Statesman (it unearths almost every theme in the film)

31/03/07 | 6.03 pm

>> if you were at srinagar screening post your comments/experiences here. if you have images from the screening email them to us at jashneazadifilmATgmail.com.

31/03/07 | 5.00 pm

a long interview with Sanjay Kak, a version of which also appears in Tehelka.

31/03/07 | 1.54 pm

in about half an hour, srinagar preview is on. all technical problems sorted. managed even a camera which will play large DVCAM tapes. unlike Habitat screening in Delhi, we will have stereo sound and yes, a bright new projector.

we will keep you posted.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “[ blog flash 3 – srinagar ]”


  1. 1 Asif April 1, 2007 at 3:19 am

    A never-before-seen courageous attempt at bringing forth the truth which shall not only ‘disturb’ a majority of Indians but also ‘disturb’ a large number of Kashmiris – those who have chosen to live in their self-created cocoons of ‘freedom’ and within it closed their eyes to the reality and the ‘truth.’

  2. 2 Sangeeta Chattoo April 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    I have been following the comments on Sanjay Kak’s film with great interest, though I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet. From the interview and the comments posted here, one gets a fair sense of the argument that Kak
    has chosen to represent.

    It is difficult not to compare Kak’s position with that adopted in the film by Abir Bazaz – a film that takes you through the greyness of the multiplicity of meanings and
    levels of death and devastation without reducing it to a single frame, asingle memory or a single voice. That Abir happens to be a liberal Muslim is co-incidental – what really is significant is that Abir’s film addresses the complexity of the situation in Kashmir from multiple contrary vantage points through time presented as a montage, reflecting different memories and histories of loss, belonging, death and destruction.

    The point is not that Kak has chosen to represent only a Muslim perspective on Azadi, but that he seems to think that the desire for azadi represents a single voice of all Kashmiri Muslims since 1989. I don’t think Kak has a clue to the coercion and violence inflicted by the
    x number of different militant groups and the devastation caused by the gun culture and a parallel political economy generated mutually by the military and the militants. Of course Kashmir looks like a city under siege with the presence of the army, their guns and barracks, but Kak does not want to confront the aftermath of the violence inflicted by militants not only on Pandits but also fellow Muslims, systematically killing, kidnapping raping and displaying dismembered bodies – a strategy to coerce Kashmiris into following a particular slogan of Azadi at gun point so different from the notion of kashmiriyat and self- rule prevalent around 1940s, supported by many Pandit intellectuals at the time. How can Kak comment on the present economic situation in the valley without taking into account the wilful destruction of the educational, cultural, economic and political structures by various militant and separatist factions since 1989? The recent economic regeneration in the valley is a separate issue altogether.

    Kak’s liberal view imparts no sense of the homogenised version of new Islam imposed on the Kashmiris. Whose interpretation of Islam is it- and why did it arise at a certain time in 1989 and why not earlier than that? The challenges posed by rise of fundamentalist Islamic groups within neighbouring Pakistan suggest that the situation in Kashmir is rooted in its own history as well as a wider history of redefinition of Islamic identities all over the world. And even if we were to agree with Kak, notwithstanding the discontinuities in the recent history of azadi, that all these Kashmiri Muslims are speaking in a single voice – yearning for freedom and self determination, why is there no talk of economic self determination? Even political parties, such as the PDP, who are so keen on self-determination seem to take economic support from the Centre for granted.

    And speaking of a liberal response to Kashmir, I uphold the democratic rights of all persecuted minorities anywhere in the world, and can’t see why the rights of the Pandits of Kashmir – raped, killed and forced to flee their homes at gun point – are less significant just because they happen to be Hindu. The challenge that Kashmir poses for the liberal intellectuals is that we can’t handle the absurdity of violence and destruction caused by militant groups and state/ military in the same frame without taking sides. Secondly, it is difficult to answer why the Muslims of the valley and surrounding areas have a stronger right over the land than other minority groups, especially Hindus, and how far back in history do we go to solve the problem.

    Sangeeta Chattoo
    University of York

    |

  3. 3 Juz A Kashmiri April 9, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    Dear BlogOwner (I assume it’s Sanjay Kak)

    Though till date I haven’t had a chance to watch your film (or documentary or whatever it may be categorised as) but I did go through your interview on Tehelka.Com

    Some of the views that you have expressed about Kashmir have struck a chord in my heart and I am sure it has done the same among countless others (regardless of the faith he/she professes). I wish I get the chance of seeing your film quite soon.

    Kashmiris have been living under subjugation (and terror) from many sides for nearly two decades now and it is an irony that even now the sound-bytes we get on the network television are only when it is debated whether a certain person should be hanged or not based on the circumstantial evidence. This is where I think the alienation sets in – when no one is ready to believe your side of the story or when no gives credence to the fact that you have suffered, you do not care a damn in return either.

    I do not know what Kashmir needs – Azadi, India or Pakistan – but what I am sure about that we may be better off without some of these – leaders who spew venom and spread hatred, political honchos who speak healing touch before taking over the reins of power, forget it for three years and then talk of demilitarization (or else) and then consider a cuppa tea with chairperson of the conglomerate in power to be the best thing to have happened to Kashmiris, those asking people to shed their blood while ensuring that their loved ones are away from the same and also those who know how to do a flip-flop depending on the location they are speaking from.

    I sincerely hope a day comes when we get to see another film from you titled – Jashn-e-Amann based on the return of peace to a place which to me still is and always will be Paradise on Earth.

    Juz A Kashmiri

    P.S: I am really humbled to see my blog in your blogroll. I don’t have words to say how I feel.

  4. 4 J April 11, 2007 at 7:45 am

    Dear Sangeeta Chattoo,

    My few comments on your post have been made with full consideration of the fact that since you have not see the film your observations about it can be ignored. That is why I am more interested with your claims about militant atrocities, why only 1989, economic independence, the claims on “land”.

    On minorities, however, much time has been spent already, and it is turning out that the “minority” has become the majority discourse here. Not that it is not important but I have begun to realise that whenever Kashmiri Muslims begin to talk about their miseries the discourse is noisily shifted to “what about Pandits”. So I now see it–the “Pandit”–as an ideological simulacrum with which Kashmiri Muslims are beaten, harassed, and muzzled. “Pandits” have seized to be real people, with real emotions in this discourse which “India” has spawned. (For Kashmiri Muslims, though, the Pandits still are real people, for there are real signs, imprints, and traces of Pandits in Kashmir, the memories of living together, unlike Indians who see them as objects). So in this discourse whose one more ugly manifestation your post is, “Pandits” have turned into a political project, which has taken an independent existence of its own, away from the very people that it falsely claims to represent. “Pandits” as victims ceased to be a valuable category long back (not for Kashmiri Muslims though), and are used as an ethical justification for continued unethical Indian occupation of Kashmir…

    Regarding your concerns of militant pressure on Kashmiris, I feel your observations, even though, highly exaggerated still have some little truth value to them. There have been atrocities. Many innocent, but not only innocent, people have been killed. As opposed to this Indian occupation forces never kill “innocents”, for Kashmiris who die are not “innocents”; they have political positions, and they want independence. All those people who want independence (majority of Kashmiris) cannot be innocent. In this however one has to understand, who is killing for what. Indians are killing to maintain an unacceptable, illegal, and unjust occupation; militants are killing those who militate against the people’s wishes. And those who militate are not “innocent”. (But as I earlier pointed they also kill innocents, those who are not militating against the peoples’ aspirations. They must be criticised for such killings.) And here I am talking about the aspirations of the MOST people.

    The question is not “why it started in 1989?” in the sense you ask, which is to imply that it had to do with Afghanistan and other Islamic insurgencies, but “why did it start in 1989!” in the sense, how could a people denied of their most fundamental right take so much time to militantly resist it? 1989 was a full 42 years after an unethical occupation by India and Pakistan of Kashmir began.

    You talk of why not economic independence of Kashmir (it is supposedly guzzling money from Indian exchequer), but this like building a house roof-down. Economic independence can begin only with political independence. By the way, 60 percent of the begged money that goes to J&K goes to the security-related issues. The rest seems to be evaporating into thin air, for which a non-existent infrastructure in Kashmir bears ample testimony.

    And finally, all Kashmiris have a claim on the land of Kashmir. Who else should have it, India? Why on earth?

  5. 5 Sangeeta Chattoo April 15, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Sorry, could you please say who you are. I want to respond to your comments.

    Thanks.
    Sangeeta Chattoo

  6. 6 Sangeeta Chattoo April 17, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    J
    Sorry, you missed the point. I am not condoning the attrocities, rapes, murder, death and desrtuction suffered by the Kashmiri Muslims since 1989; and within Delhi’s struggle to keep Kashmir, the objectification of Kashmiri Muslims and ‘occupation’ of Kashmir. I was born in Srinagar and grew up there – what I am contesting is the homogenisation and reconstitution of a Kashmiri Muslim identity and a unified vision of Azadi crystalising around 1989. you did not want to commment on the politizisation of a notion of Azadi as jihad and the sytematic exclusion of the Pandits within this new equation – or the fact that for some Kashmirirs being a Kashmiri and an Indian are not problematic?

    I disagree with you entirely on the point about Pandits -they are not part of the equation any longer by virtue of logic of numbers and the only party that uses their objectification is the BJP. We are there as traces of your memory of past – history.

    We survived previous disjunctures in history and were able to rebuild a community (previous genocide, forced conversions and exodus of Pandits under Muslim rulers, the subjugation of Muslims under Sikh and Dogra rulers; 1947 and accession to India, invasion by Pakistan and division of Kashmir; and Article 370 and the political isolation built into a notion of separate constitution….

    Let us have a framework within which we can mourn what we have lost and what is at stake as part of a unique heritage, and recognise that 1947 is not the only point of reference in hitory to make a claim on Kashmir.

  7. 7 J April 17, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Dear Sangeeta Chattoo,

    I guess the moderators won’t just let my writing down my name pass through here, so I take this as another opportunity to add to what I already wrote earlier; and for this opportunity I thank you.

    I think the discourse about “Pandits” (I am speaking of the mainstream discourse in media, government circles etc, and even in the liberal circuit) has totally conflated the issues of the Hindu minority in Kashmir with the larger aspiration for freedom. You constantly go to 1990 to suggest how Muslims in Kashmir made Pandits vulnerable by raising the cry for freedom. So whenever Kashmiri people speak about freedom, people like you jump up and cry hoarse about ‘so what about “Pandits”, huh?’ It is almost like a verbal equivalent of the Indian occupation, that stiffles any Kashmriri voice, if only in a less violent manner, but violence nevertheless. By this casuistry you butress Indian claim over the Kashmiri ‘land’; Indians cite the naive arguments like yours to say that an independent Kashmir will not be able to take care of its minorities (or sometimes even themselves), an argument which is then automatically extended into areas of economic self-reliance, foreign intervention etc.

    With each new posts here I see words like
    “rape”, “Genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” etc used with such casualness, all of this meant to show a Muslim/Islamic complicity in it, that the real suffering of the actual Pandits is increasingly made to look trivial by this semantic spin.

    You, along with the Indian occupation forces, thus stand in a spectatorial judgement over Kashmiris who you ask in your brassy, hectoring voice to prove to you if they can take care of minorities and themselves. Why? Why should they?

    That is where “Pandits” become a political invention, and its proponents the natural apologists for an illegal, unpopular occupation of Kashmir.

    It’s uglier side is increasingly revealed when Kashmiri Muslims are made to first account for “Pandit” miseries before their’s can be even allowed to be spoken about.

    I would go to the extent of saying then that people like you become an ideological simulacra of a simulacrum. “Sangeeta Chattoo” is not a real person then but a political enterprise who keep another enterprise “Panditology” afloat by uncritically accepting the Panditology’s vocabulary. You are thus twice removed from actuality, from what really happened, from history itself. But as loyal to Indian occupation you are serving your ideological function well.

    A meaningful conversation can take place if you dissolve yourself as a project, and remove yourself from the discursive justification of the Indian occupation of Kashmir.

    My name is Mohamad Junaid… In future posts I will continue with my J, for I have grown to like it. I used the acronym for I was one of the first Kashmiri Muslim commentors on this blog, and wasn’t sure if I should risk using my full name in a country where a simple word of the mouth (or a totally harmless phone call) can land a Kashmiri Muslim in Tihar’s torture cells for months.

  8. 8 J April 18, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    A Rejoinder…

    I also want to add that of course the discourse of azadi was couched in the religious discourse. Yes, freedom fighters were called Mujahideen, and the fight against India was seen as Jihad. For people who look at jihad as something that represents a moral struggle (both against the oppressor as well as against ones desires) instead of a pure trans-temporal concept that represents Holy War in the defence of religion, would see no contradiction in Azadi and jihad being spelt out in the same breath. But more than that religion was always part of the Kashmiri lived world, and it was expected that in a situation where there was no other anchor left to cling on to for the oppressed Kashmiri masses, it was religion that provided a ground.

    Secular discourse of “Kashmiriyat” which National Conference initially spawned to mark Kashmir as distinct from both Pakistan and India, was spun by the Indian state to mean a history of communal harmony in Kashmir and, thus, a natural argument for why Kashmir should be part of India. The relations between Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir which were one of Rulers and Subjects, landowners and poor peasants, tiny super-influential elite and masses that suffered from begar, were resolved by a linguistic twist. This was before 1947. So the secular discourse landed Kashmiris into the hands of a secular oppressor against their will (how secular India is, is a matter for a separate debate). Thus when in 1989 the freedom movement began azadi was spoken of in a religious language but the meaning remained the same as it was for Mehjoor when he wrote his famous poem “Azadi” after the Indian occupation shattered a brief hope of independence. “Mujahideen” and “Azadi” are a discursive challenge by powerless masses to India that uses a secular polemic to justify an inhuman and brutal military occupation of Kashmir.

    This discourse represented no threat to anyone except those who were seen as conniving against the general aspiration of azadi, which included the small pro-India Muslim elite. There are Sikhs too in Kashmir, they might not have been able to understand what lay behind the slogan of jihad, but they did not feel any need to leave. Pandits left. No one drove them out. They “exodused.” Can any one claim to have seen hordes of Muslim Kashmiris raping and plundering and slaughtering Hindus, the way Hindus in Gujarat systematically did to Muslims, or what happened in Nellie, or in riots during the division of the subcontinent in 1947, or elsewhere in India.

    As I mentioned in my last post you use apocalyptic words like “genocide” willfully to implicitly indicate that Kashmiri Muslims were responsible for the Pandit flight; that somehow it was the demand for azadi that made Pandits leave. This discourse of yours is what I call “Panditology”—or “Pandits” as a political invention. It is this discourse for whose sustenance you need to emphasize your unproblematic being as Kashmiri and Indian at the same time. Otherwise how can one possibly be both a victim of occupation and the occupation’s apologist simultaneously?

    Your historical ‘unconsciousness’ is revealed in the fact that you simply import RSS’s shameful and trick Hindutva historiography, and impose it on Kashmir’s past. “Muslim Rule”, “Forced conversions”, etc… As if Muslim rule was one stretch of homogenous rule under which Hindus were oppressed. If there was Sikandar, there was a Zainul Abidin also. But that is not my concern; I am not even bothered by what “Muslim Rulers” did or did not do. How am I responsible for it? Why should the Kashmiris be stripped of their right to freedom because of the past (especially the one you concoct)? Pandits were not eliminated; I am one, if you will, but living as a Muslim now. Conversion is not the same as genocide. And forced or non-forced conversions happened everywhere. Our (yours and mine) ancestors were not Hindu always, they were probably Buddhists, or something else, before they were converted or they converted to Hinduism.

    “Accession to India” as opposed to “Pakistani Invasion” is also a semantic trick employed to gloss over the illegality and unpopularity of Indian occupation. “Accession to India” is not as innocent as you make it sound. It took a huge verbal trickery, and mass hypnotization (of Indians only) to turn something with no popular support whatsoever, and signed by a ruler who was driven away by his subjects, palatable to gullible people like you.

    Well, if you are saying what you are saying, then you have proven me right in saying that you are “Sangeeta Chattoo”, a substitutable and willing foot-soldier in the occupation army. But if you are not then you can disabuse yourself of your received knowledge, and begin a critical quest to understand Azadi…

  9. 9 Varun Shekhar October 11, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    (blogmistri has consolidated all comments by Varun Shekhar in one entry, so that blog’s recent comments section does not get clogged)

    Also, what is so special about Kashmir and its accession to India’s democratic, federal idea( now, system)? After all, 560 other princely states became part of the new India, mostly willingly and non-violently. The one exception was of course Hyderabad, where the Indian army and other patriots had to crush a horrible Islamic Al-Qaeda type insurgency which had killed hundreds of people. Should India not have absorbed Hyderabad as well? Virtually the entire Moslem population was against ‘accession’ ( ok, the odd exception) and that didn’t stop India from doing the progressive, and right, thing.

    Oct 11, 7:03 PM on [ blog flash 3 – srinagar ]

    Extremely aggressive, arrogant and self glorifying rant by “J”. So now, jihad and holy war against India is a wonderful thing, huh? Pandits were threatened with death from loudspeakers in mosques starting in at least 1990, and made to feel extremely insecure by a number of assassinations from 1989. Were these killings justified? After all, you can say they were directed against secular or Hindu oppressors( oppressive by their very presence on Moslem land, of course) right? Anyone coming in the way of Islamic jihad against a hated, awful, tyrannnical oppressor( read the Indian democratic, federal, pluralistic state) deserves to be killed, even tortured before being killed, as did happen on several occasions. “J” refers to what he feels is a small minority of pro-India Kashmiri Moslem eilte. Don’t they have rights? If they say “We are happy being part of India’s democratic, federal system” , is “J” suggesting that they deserve to be killed? Evidently so. “J”, you have the fanatical terrorist mentality, that is if you are not actually a terrorist.

    Oct 11, 6:56 PM [ blog flash 3 – srinagar ]

    I have commented on the actual Kashmiri struggle elsewhere. But how does the writer of the above article view the events that transpired on the North West Frontier Province( NWFP) in 1946? If you remember, an Indian nationalist, Congress-Red Shirt coalition was the governing party in office until a Moslem League violent agitation brought it down. Every dirty trick in the book was used to get the government to resign and hence bring in the Moslem League. Was the Congress occupying the NWFP, and subjecting the 90% Moslem majority to horrible tyranny. And was that the cause of the agitation that brought the government down?

    Oct 11, 6:38 PM [ blogrumination: beyond acrimony ]

    In response to Smita, what exactly is the problem Kashmiris, I should say some Kashmiris, have with being part of India? Why don’t you deal with that question, rather than just flatly stating that Kashmiris wish to disengage from India? India will not accept a movement based on religious hatred and/or ethno-chauvinism, so for the Kashmiri struggle to have validity, it has to be far more elevated than the gratuituous nonsense we’ve seen all these years. Since India itself is a democratic, pluralistic, federal entity- not a colonial or imperial one- Kashmir’s movement for freedom has to have as its guiding principle(s) something more englightened and elevated than what exists presently. Otherwise, it’s just a bigoted, reactive, mendacious movement. Surely if the Kashmiris’ cause were enobling and enriching for humanity, it would have attracted far more global sympathy and support than it has. Intelligent people can see that it is not a progressive, transcendent struggle against a hatefully oppressive, outmoded, imperial, quasi-fascistic entity. The Kashmiris are not Buddhist monks up against a tyrannical military
    dictatorship.

    Oct 11, 6:23 PM [ blogflash 13: hyderabad jitters !]

    Long suffering Kashmiris at the hands of the Indian army- that’s bogus. Fact is, the Kashmiris brought this suffering on themselves starting in 1989. The Indian military isn’t there for the fun of it. They have a dual purpose- to fight the Islamic militants, and to guard the border from Pakistani infiltrators. It should be mentioned that Indian settlers from the plains have not colonized Kashmir and pushed Kashmiris into refugee camps. so the Palestinian explanation doesn’t hold here. Kashmir has never been a particularly poor state, nor has it been super-exploited, colonial style, to extract mega-profits for entities outside the territory. This is an ugly Islamic terrorist cum Kashmiri ethno-chauvinist movement, and it will not succeed.

    Oct 11, 3:10 PM [ comment: sanjay kak ]

    All these wordy descriptions and defenses of the film ignore the incredible sacrifices of Indians to keep Kashmir within India. Just today, at least 9 soldiers died from a cylinder blast, and the terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahadeed proudly claimed responsibility. What do Kak and the promoters/defenders of this film have to say to the families and friends of all these soldiers? That they deserve to get killed because after all, they are aliens in an occupied land? That Kashmir has absolutely, positively nothing to with India, no connection at all, in the present or for the last 300 years? Good luck with that. Meanwhile, India will do whatever it can to keep Kashmir within India’s democratic, federal system.

    Oct 11, 2:59 PM [ blogflash 14 : heavy handed criticism! ]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Jashn-e-Azadi is available through various online outlets like amazon

You can now buy a DVD of the film, or Download it and watch
More than two years in the making, Jashn-e-azadi [How We Celebrate Freedom], is a feature length documentary by film-maker Sanjay Kak which explores the implications of the struggle for Azadi, for freedom, in the Kashmir valley.

Click here to watch the Trailer

As India celebrates the 60th anniversary of it's Independence, this provocative and quietly disturbing new film raises questions about freedom in Kashmir, and about the degrees of freedom in India.

And here is a short Interview with the film-maker.

This Jashn-e-Azadi blog is an open forum for conversations about the film, about Kashmir, and about Azadi itself.

For more information about screenings, sales and broadcast write to
jashneazadifilmATgmail.com

links

For dispatches from the present

Voices of protest can be found here or call you from here

Stone in my hand

In the season of solutions, the late Eqbal Ahmad's wise words have to be remembered

Kashmir blog has the best one line blog take on Kashmir - they call it paradise, I call it home.

Zarafshan is a Kashmiri blogger whose blog (and blogrolls) are "just ways of dispersing news, views and feelings!"

For a considered discussion on the vexed issue of Pandits in Kashmir see Kasheer. And for more on this Ephemeral Existence

And a discovery called Paradise Lost

RSS Kashmir via Greater Kashmir

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

previews

Festival screenings

Thiruvananthapuram
May 26, 2008 / International Video Festival of Kerala
Munich
Apr 28, 2008 / Dok.Fest
Amsterdam
Feb 10, 2008 / Himalaya Film Festival
Amsterdam
Nov 28, 2007 / International Documentary Festival
Kathmandu
Oct 12, 2007 / Film South Asia
Delhi
July 22, 2007 / Osian’s Cinefan film festival

Previous Previews

London
7 Dec 2007 / School of Oriental & African Studies & Sacred Media Cow
Leeds
6 Dec 2007 / Workshop Theatre, School of English, University of Leeds
Egham, Surrey
3 Dec 2007 / Royal Holloway, University of London
New Delhi
26 Nov 2007 / Russian Centre of Science & Culture & Magic Lantern Foundation

New Jersey
Oct 5, 2007 / College of New Jersey
New York City
Oct 4, 2007 / Columbia School of Journalism
Austin
Oct 2, 2007 / University of Texas
Philadelphia
Sep 28, 2007 / Temple University
Philadelphia
Sep 27, 2007 / University of Pennsylvania
New York State
Sep 26, 2007 / Vassar College
New York City
Sep 25, 2007 / New School for Social Research
Boston
Sep 23, 2007 @ MIT
Toronto
Sep 22, 2007 / SALDA
Toronto
Sep 21, 2007 / University of Toronto
New Haven
Sep 20, 2007 / Yale University
Minneapolis
Sep 18, 2007 / University of Minnesota

Hyderabad
Aug 10, 2007 / Pure Docs, Prasad Preview, Banjara Hills

interrupted previews!! [[ MUMBAI ...
July 27, 2007 (Fri)
Vikalp: Films for Freedom @ Bhupesh Gupta Bhawan, 85 Sayani Road, Prabhadevi
July 30, 2007 (Mon)
Vikalp: Films for Freedom @ Prithvi House, Juhu...]]

Bangalore
July 14, 2007 / Institute of Agrl. Technologies, Queens Road
Bangalore
July 13, 2007 / Centre for Film & Drama, Millers Road
Nashik
June 13, 2007, Pandit Vishnu Digambar Paluskar Hall
Pune
June 12, 2007, National Film Archive of India Auditorium
Guwahati
May 29, 2007, Blue Moon Hotel
Shillong
May 26, 2007, Assam Club, Laban
Patna
May 12, 2007, Hindi Bhavan Hall
Srinagar
March 31, 2007, Tagore Hall
New Delhi
March 23, 2007, Sarai-CSDS
New Delhi
March 13, 2007, India Habitat Center

a

stats

  • 134,966 visitors

%d bloggers like this: