Scene: A quiet room in a Delhi bungalow. Two politicians, Mr. Sharma and Ms. Khan, are seated across a table, sipping tea.

Mr. Sharma: (Sighs) Aisha, have you seen 'The Kashmir Files'?

Ms. Khan: (Nods) I have, Rajiv. Quite the… experience. What did you make of it?

Mr. Sharma: It's powerful, I'll grant you that. The raw emotion, the depiction of suffering... it's undeniably impactful. It forces you to confront a dark chapter in our history. Perhaps it will force our nation to address the long-festering wound.

Ms. Khan: Impactful, yes, but is it accurate? Is it responsible? That's where my concerns lie. I worry about the narrative it pushes. It paints a very specific picture, one that, in my view, oversimplifies a complex tragedy. It could further fuel hatred and division, especially in the current climate. The movie is less concerned with the truth of the past and more concerned with stoking the passions of the present. It plays into a very dangerous game.

Mr. Sharma: But isn't it important to acknowledge the pain of the Kashmiri Pandit community? Their voices have been silenced for too long. This film, whatever its flaws, has given them a platform.

Ms. Khan: I agree. Their pain is real, and it needs to be acknowledged. But the film seems to use their pain to demonize an entire community, to create an 'us vs. them' narrative that is incredibly dangerous. It lacks nuance. Where is the context of the broader political situation? Where are the voices of Kashmiri Muslims who also suffered during that period? Selective storytelling, Rajiv, is a dangerous thing. It is the art of making lies from half-truths.

Mr. Sharma: You think it's deliberately divisive?

Ms. Khan: I fear so. The timing of its release, the way it's being promoted... it all feels very calculated. It serves a particular political agenda, one that benefits from polarization. It's also worth noting the factual inaccuracies pointed out by many critics [The Hindu]. This is not about truth-telling. It is about manufacturing consent.

Mr. Sharma: But if it makes people aware of what happened, even in a heightened way, is that inherently bad? Won't that awareness, however generated, drive the national converstaion?

Ms. Khan: Awareness at the cost of social harmony? At the risk of inciting violence? I don't think so. A true reckoning requires honesty, empathy, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths – all truths, not just the ones that fit a convenient narrative. Instead, this film risks pushing us further down a path of division and mistrust. And for what? A few more votes?

Mr. Sharma: (Sighs again) It's a difficult one, Aisha. A very difficult one. I see your point, I really do. The potential for misuse is undeniable. But I also can't dismiss the emotional impact it has had on so many people, particularly those who feel they have been ignored for so long.

Ms. Khan: And I understand that, Rajiv. But leadership requires us to look beyond immediate emotions, to consider the long-term consequences of our actions and our words. We can acknowledge the pain of the past without weaponizing it for political gain in the present. We must. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of history, not learning from them.

(Both fall silent for a moment, contemplating the complexities of the issue)