“Leaving aside Kashmir’s centuries-old struggle against colonial invaders and occupiers, this much should be evident to those who have known the news since 1947: Kashmiris have been fighting the Indian State all these years because of the consequences of being a Muslim-majority people living under the rule of a Hindu-fascist system that calls itself a constitutional democracy. India could at least try to be as civilised towards Kashmiris as British Raj was towards Indians, but it is incapable of that level of human decency because of the Brahminism in its soul.

“PS: I must accept British Raj as a role model of being civilised, for otherwise I wouldn’t have printable words to describe the occupier of Kashmir. This allows me to get away by just saying that India lacks the British level of decency. If I were to call out British Raj for the brutish system it was, what would I call Indian rule in Kashmir? From the known facts, it is easy to say there was greater space for democratic rights under the British Raj than in Kashmir even during Nehru’s time. And today this is not even a question — BJP rule is definitely worse than British rule. There was also greater support for Indians among British people than for Kashmiris among Indian people. The Britishers at least acknowledged that they were ruling an empire; most Indians, including even the majority of those fighting against the Indian State for democratic rights, insist that the Republic of India, including Kashmir and the Northeast, is their nation, not a colonising empire. #StandWithKashmir #EndTheOccupation”

–Indian activist Satyadeep Satya