The 'journalist' has a clear bias and has come up with all the incorrect interpretations.
This article is a good example of how even the truth can be misinterpreted to match your agenda.
The locals living in a serene area have been non-stop harassed by these 'journalists' for over a year. How else do you expect them to respond?!
Indians and Indian-hired 'journalists' have been trying to stage props at the area to 'prove' that the strike was successful, for over a year. Our security forces are competent enough to block those efforts.
Locals confirm strike was unsuccessful.
The only fact according to locals is the madrassa was established in 1980s. The rest is fiction, made to look like it too was 'according to locals'.
Not sure what's so special about this. It was probably an expensive madrassa that locals could not afford. Non-muslims have attached a negative connotation to the word madrassa. They seem to forget they are after all, just schools.