1. We interviewed people from the UN, HRW and Amnesty, as well as local rights bodies. Are these not neutral? All had spent many years pressing India for reform on issues relating to torture. But the torture bill has stalled and India has not ratified the convention. In turn India has declined since 1993 to allow the UN’s rapporteur into the country. We also then used RTI laws to obtain State Human Rights documents to substantiate every case. The opinions in most cases were those of the SHRC. Is it not neutral? It is a government body. We also obtained data from the J&K government through RTI requests which became part of the commentary. Ultimately, having assembled an enormous legal file we presented our findings to the Indian government.

It responded: we do not wish to comment. The JK Army was asked repeatedly to take part and on every occasion declined.

However, regardless, and of our own volition, we placed throughout the film caveats representing the Indian view, as gleaned from top officials the film crew talked to in Kashmir. We explained in the film India’s alleged ‘security concerns’, its continuing belief that uprising in Kashmir was solely a manifestation of Pakistan mendaciousness, given that it has practised terror too in India frequently.

However, having done this, what we were still left with was a bone chilling story, that while the insurgency is according to the India army at its lowest ebb ever, human rights abuses, particularly torture, continue to be rampant, with as many as one in six detained Kashmiris reporting grievous cases of torture. Our legal file was bulging with them and it makes for horrendous reading.

2. The production team arrived having watched the stone pelting explode and not before it. Watching the images we decided to focus on Kashmir and not the other way around.

This statement was taken by the reporter. Not a word was used. Instead, he turned it on his head.