OpIndia Featured Bylines In the years I have worked as first the editor and then the editor-in-chief of OpIndia, my writing has spanned several genres. From ground reports, legal analysis, documenting crimes against Hindus, commentary on the corporate media and their distortions, history, rights of Hindus, politics and more. Here are some select articles. My full body of work can be accessed at OpIndia. To access all published articles, visit https://www.opindia.com/author/unsubtledesi/ Organisation I started my career writing about corporate media, their spins and their utter distortions in 2017. This eventually progressed in to the realisation that while media distortions were important, there was a civilizational battle unfolding right before our eyes. The corporate media was only a tool being used to challenge the very existence of Hindus. I have aimed to shine the light on cries unheard, issues pushed under the rug, taboos that are meant to be broken and history that had been whitewashed. OpIndia has emerged as one of the few voices speaking against the global persecution of Hindus. My journey continues to be a thrilling one, as the editor-in-chief. Visit OpIndia As Rahul Gandhi equates Hinduism with Ahimsa, time to remember why Hindus must not fall for 'another Gandhi' 1 July 2024 Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. Read Full Article 5 lessons from History: As we remember horrors of partition, here is what Hindus need to learn to ensure that Bharat is never torn apart again 14 August 2023 The Hindus' collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct - legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. The Hindus' collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct - legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. Read Full Article Why Section 195 of Draft Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita needs relook: A ‘religiously neutral provision’ that may end up criminalising criticism of Muslim separatism 12 August 2023 Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Read Full Article Nuh violence: How the media crafts a narrative to whitewash violence unleashed by Islamists and blame Hindus instead 1 August 2023 While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Read Full Article Ram Navami violence is not sporadic: If one read RC Majumdar, one would know that history, leading up to 1947, is being repeated right in front of our eyes 11 April 2023 One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years - where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades. One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years - where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades. Read Full Article An open letter to Justice Joseph, which I hope he can read if he has stopped smiling at the calls for genocide of Brahmins and Hindus 30 March 2023 As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. Read Full Article 5 dangerous tropes and falsities that Shivraj Patil is encouraging by comparing Jihad with the Mahabharat war or Dharma Yuddh 21 October 2022 The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. Read Full Article From Rangeela Rasool to Kohat riots and Nupur Sharma: An unmissable pattern of insult, aggression, victim playing and vilification of Hindus 21 October 2022 Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. Hindus, as I say, will perish if we refuse to recognise the patterns of oppression that we have been taught to accept like well-trained mules. Read Full Article ‘Muslims must stay away from Garba’: A viral tweet and a conversation I must have with my readers 3 October 2022 With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. Read Full Article ‘Islamophobia’ does not exist: It’s time to push for this ‘politically incorrect’ reality 14 June 2022 Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Read Full Article Rangeela Rasool, 295A, partition: History threatens to repeat as demands for a special law to punish ‘gustakh-e-rasool’ grows 13 June 2022 We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. Read Full Article Many Hindus still think what Nupur Sharma said was ‘unnecessary’: Here is a necessary read for them 7 June 2022 Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Read Full Article Dharma Sankat over Dharma Sansad: Calls for violence and a dilemma for Hindus 24 December 2021 It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. Read Full Article The greatest achievement of Hindus in the past 7 years: Shifting the Overton Window 9 November 2021 The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. The government in power, on its own, is not responsible for shifting the Overton Window. Basically, they are responsible for recognising where the window is and then making policies that are commensurate with where the window is. It is people outside the acceptability spectrum that move the window by convincing the masses that what is radical today should be policy tomorrow. Read Full Article “We will not worship if Muslims don’t want, but please save us”: From India to Bangladesh, how veto of violence works 14 October 2021 While the Muslim hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, journalists like Rana Ayyub give them spectacular covering fire. After the rampant violence that the Muslim extremists indulge in and have indulged in, Rana Ayyub chooses to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. While the Muslim hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, journalists like Rana Ayyub give them spectacular covering fire. After the rampant violence that the Muslim extremists indulge in and have indulged in, Rana Ayyub chooses to follow the path of Mahatma Gandhi. Read Full Article ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event: Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the genocide of Hindus 19 August 2021 India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. It is time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. India is the only land that has a Hindu majority. Hinduism, Sanatan, is engraved in its consciousness since before the political boundaries were drawn. Our stories, our heroes our legacy is attached to this land and no other. It is time for Hindus to preserve it - in action and words. Read Full Article The post-poll violence in Bengal: Where is our Gopal Patha 29 July 2021 The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively The state, historically, has incentivised street veto and it is also our history that the Muslim community has wielded that power effectively Read Full Article Orphans of Bengal: Disillusioned. Resigned. Defeated. Broken 4 May 2021 It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. Read Full Article How and why I went from ‘Beef eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who eat beef are not my people’ 4 January 2021 Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is little more than a disguised attempt to undermine our resolve to defend our way of life. To counter such trends, it is imperative that the taboo against beef-eating is strengthened manifold. And only society, together, can find a solution. Read Full Article Neo-Atheists, Atheists, militant Atheism and everything in between: Caged by Abrahamic Monotheism 7 September 2020 Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Read Full Article Muslims chose to stay back in India: An analysis of the mythical, unsubstantiated trope that is used to make Hindus feel guilty 6 August 2020 If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen If Muslims who stayed back in India and their current off-springs were genuinely so connected to the ethos of India and its Hindu majority, one will have to logically explain the rise in radicalism that India has seen Read Full Article Why the Muslim perpetrators’ name must be mentioned explicitly when the victim is a Hindu 2 December 2019 Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Read Full Article A Hindu perennially ashamed and guilty: How narrative after Ayodhya verdict is trying to achieve it 17 November 2019 It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. Read Full Article India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus 10 September 2019 While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation While accepting the truth might be hard with the politically correct narrative of 'secularism' having diseased our discourse, the truth is that Islam as a religion was introduced in India through violent conquests and barbaric Islamic rulers who were alien to the nation Read Full Article Prime Minister Modi, Hindus are under siege, and now is the right time to speak up 15 July 2019 After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. Read Full Article Publications In July 2020, I co-authored a fact-finding report for OpIndia which documented the progression of the violence which led to the Delhi anti-Hindu riots in February 2020. This publication traces the three months preceding the riots and how. Explore

Official website of Nupur J Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of OpIndia. From accidental journalist to advocating for Hindu civilisational causes. Explore her work, publications, podcasts and media appearances. Mother, Accidental Journalist, Editor In Chief, OpIndia “I picked up my pen because they sold theirs” Why I Am I was once an anonymous nobody – sitting in my cocoon and running a small business in a quiet area of Kolkata. Nobody knew me. Nobody cared who I was and what I thought. Perhaps my father did, because he was the other one who cared to listen to my endless rants. One day in 2017, I got a call by a man I deeply admired for his wit. My would-be CEO, Rahul Roushan, asked me if I wanted to lead OpIndia.com – a small website which had the temerity to exist – against the media tides. About An Indian journalist who believes in presenting stories that seldom find mention in the corporate media. The voice of those persecuted. Hindus are one of the most persecuted religious groups and I have chosen to dedicate my life to documenting religiously motivated crimes and advocating for equal human and civilizational rights. During the course of my career, I have investigated several important stories related to religious extremism and terrorism - Delhi anti-Hindu riots being one of the most important. Work From starting my career writing about corporate media, their spins and their utter distortions in 2017 to progressing to the realisation that while media distortions were important, there was a civilizational battle unfolding right before our eyes and the corporate media was only a tool being used to challenge the very existence of Hindus, my journey continues to be a thrilling one. As OpIndia emerges as one of the few voices speaking against the global persecution of Hindus, in my capacity as the editor-in-chief, I have aimed to shine the light on cries unheard, issues pushed under the rug, taboos that are meant to be broken and history that had been whitewashed. OpIndia ↗︎ The Delhi anti-Hindu riots were perhaps a pivotal moment in modern history. The anti-Hindu riots was not a spate of violence which can be viewed and analysed in isolation. In July 2020, I co-authored a fact-finding report for OpIndia which documented the progression of the violence which led to the Delhi anti-Hindu riots in February 2020. This publication traces the three months preceding the riots and how, the February violence was merely a culmination of Left activists, Islamists and Global propagandist coming together to unleash Khilafat 2.0 against Hindus. Publications ↗︎ There is no better teacher than History in determining the future. While Hindus dream of peace and brotherhood, their History is being whitewashed, genocides watered down and rights being snatched away by brute street veto and the complicity not only of the media and the intelligentsia, but also of a deracinated state. Bharat is being catapulted towards Khilafat 2.0 and Hindus are somewhere in the 100 year timeframe preceding the Genocide of Hindus which was a direct result of the Khilafat movement and Muslim separatism. The Hindus’ collective right to retain the cultural, religious and ethical integrity of the only land they have has to be held sacrosanct – legislatively, judicially and socially. This is, perhaps, the one lesson that history is screaming out, waiting for Hindus to hear. Civilisational Advocacy ↗︎ Podcast Bringing you reports and stories from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India. Listen Media Speech is power, speech is to persuade. This section featured select TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. Explore

Loyalty Program is not available.

Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Why the Muslim perpetrators’ name must be mentioned explicitly when the victim is a Hindu Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one's social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. Nupur J Sharma 2 December 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] The brutal rape and murder in Telangana has shaken the very conscience of the nation. With widespread outrage not limited to social media, the case has occupied the media’s primary focus and rightly so. While primarily and exclusively, rape is about men exerting their depraved power over women, it is the Left which often peels layers and concerns itself with semantics. They did so in the Telangana case as well, and this article is to present the other side of the story. It is to understand why the identity of the rapist is also of consequence by extrapolating the Left’s theories. The main accused in the case is one Mohammad Pasha. Pasha was the mastermind of the heinous crime and the one who was responsible for killing her. It was Pasha who smothered her while raping her and it is he who strangled her by putting his hands on her nose and mouth. By all accounts, whether it is the remand report or even Left websites like The Quint who are trying to interview his mother to paint him as a victim of poverty, the foremost accused is Pasha. The other three accused, equally brutal, are Jollu Shiva, Jollu Naveen and Chennakeshavulu. With Mohammad Pasha alias Mohammad Ali alias Arif being the mastermind of this heinous crime, it was obvious for his name to be splashed everywhere. His identity as a Muslim, fuelled his name being highlighted further. The Left immediately sprung up to action and condemned the crime being given a “communal colour”. In fact, The Quint, that is now trying to whitewash the Mohammad by interviewing his poor mother, did a fact-check that essentially slammed “BJP supporters” for communalising the incident. India Today even tweeted that ‘Rapists have no religion’ while using a Hijabi woman as their model. When a heinous crime such as this happened, should the perpetrator be the prime focus or the victim? This is the first, foremost and the eternal question that plagues reportage and conversation around such issues. However, even if the victim is the focus, the invariable glare comes on to the monsters who would so brutally snuff the life out of an innocent. The contention here, however, was not the fact that the perpetrators were being spoken about. The content of the Left was that the ‘right’ was communalising the crime by focussing on Mohammad instead of all 4 perpetrators (the others were not Muslims). At this juncture, one must ask the broader question independent of the Telangana case but not excluding it – is there a rationale of mentioning the identity of the perpetrator when he is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu? To answer that question we must understand why media and the Left highlight the identity of Dalit victims even in crimes which are not motivated by caste considerations and then understand whether that rationale holds true for crimes where the perpetrator or the main conspirator of a crime is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu. Why the identity of a Dalit victim is mentioned after a crime and the concept of ‘Intersectionality’ It is often noticed that the caste identity of a Dalit victim is mentioned by the media and the Left while reporting crimes. The non-Left has theorised that this is perhaps to drive a wedge in the society and further the narrative that in Hindu majority India, Dalits and lower-castes are brutalised on a regular basis and therefore, further the ‘Muslim-Dalit unity’ trope that would then help ‘secular fronts’ electorally. Essentially, the non-Left has religated this practice of mentioning the caste identity of Dalit victims to the ‘break-India project’ and the project to demonise Hindus. While that may be the agenda for several media houses and Left intelligentsia, the rationale behind highlighting the caste identity of Dalit victims has a separate origin altogether. The theory essentially believes that the victim would have been at a lower risk had her identity not been that of a Dalit and hence, mentioning the caste identity is essential as even if the crime is not motivated by caste animosity, the victim was at a higher risk by virtue of her caste. To reach this conclusion, the sociological theory of ‘Intersectionality’ must be understood threadbare. ‘Intersection’ is essentially the point where two entities meet. This concept is then extrapolated to society in general. When talking about the sociological concept of Intersectionality, one must understand what society and people are defined as. The society is defined by the people, the social constructs, way of living and belief system. When it comes to the people who make up that society, one needs to understand what a person’s identity is. Identity itself is essential ‘who a person is and what he identifies himself as’. An individual is made up of his beliefs and qualities and those which are unique to him, identify him as a person which, in turn, shapes his perceptions and value systems. A person, through his own perceptions and value systems, identifies himself and what his relationship is with the society on the whole. The perception and value system of the individual is shaped by the messages he receives from the society, his school, parents, neighbourhood, religious institutions, so on and so forth. Intersectionality is thus a theoretical framework for understanding how aspects of one’s social and political identities (e.g., gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc.) might combine to create unique modes of discrimination. So for example, a Jewish woman might be discriminated against not exclusively for her Jewish identity or gender identity but because both these identities intersect and create a unique form of discrimination in a place where Christian women are not discriminated against. Or, where a black woman is more discriminated against than a black man. For instance, a White woman is less privileged than a White Man but more privileged than a Black Man. Applying this theory, the caste and gender identities of a Dalit woman are mentioned in the media when a crime is committed, since the victim was at a higher risk of being discriminated against not just because of the historical suppression of Dalits on the whole but also because of her gender identity even if the crime is not motivated specifically by caste animosity. While the media does overdo it and their motivations might be suspect, there is merit to the argument that a Dalit woman living in a disadvantaged area is more at risk than an upper-caste woman in the same area or in a more affluent area and thus, it is not incorrect to mention the caste and gender identity of the victim who might have been at a higher risk due to the intersectionality of her identities. Intersectionality should apply not only to the victim but also the perpetrator Intersectionality as a concept is mostly applied to the victim where intersecting identities of the victim puts her at a greater risk of discrimination. However, the concept of Intersectionality must also apply to the perpetrator on how his intersecting identities make him more prone to committing a crime against the victim, whose intersecting identities puts her at greater risk with respect to the perpetrator in question. While the identity of the victim is important and nothing can diminish that, the identity of the perpetrator how the identities of the victim and the perpetrator intersect at a societal level is equally important to understand the risk the victim faces historically. It is pertinent to understand here that in a country as diverse as India, it is not only the identity of the victim that determines the factor of risk but also the identity of the perpetrator. It is important to understand how the two communities view each other through social constructs that determine the factor of risk the victim faces from the perpetrators of a particular identity. For example, the media in India and the Left mentions the Dalit identity to drive home the point that Dalits are oppressed by upper-caste Hindus. Here, it is not only the identity of the Dalit victim that is in play but also the identity of the perpetrator. That the Left mentions the identity even of the perpetrator does not take away the gender identity or the caste identity of the victim. However, the victim was not at higher risk only because of her identity as a Dalit woman but also because of the intersectional identity of the perpetrator – Upper-caste Hindu male. Why the same theory must be applied when the perpetrator is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu While the Left highlights the intersecting identities of a Dalit woman when a crime is committed, when the identity of a Muslim criminal is mentioned especially in sexual crimes against Hindu women, the allegation that is often hurled is that the non-Left is trying to ‘communalise’ a crime. However, if the same theory is applied to such crimes, would it not justify highlighting the religious identity of the criminal when the perpetrator is a Muslim and the victim is a Hindu? The sociological concept of Intersectionality itself admits that tenets of the concept are fluid and change depending upon time and place. For example, we do not talk about race or gender contracts the way we used to 100 years ago. When we talk about religious identities, one must also acknowledge in no uncertain terms that Hindus and Muslims have been co-existing in India but the historicity of that relationship is strained and blood-soaked at the very least. Hindus have seen over 800 years of Islamic rule where they were beaten, raped, killed and converted. Where their temples were trampled upon and their identity as Hindus was under siege. Post the Islamic rule, in Independent India, the atrocities committed by Islamists have not stopped, whether the Left likes to believe it or not. If we take Kashmir, for example, India’s only Muslim dominated state, the picture becomes evident. The Hindu minority of the state were beaten, raped, murdered and cleansed from the state. The slogans that emanated from the mosques of Kashmir in the 90s said that Hindu men should leave the valley but leave their women behind for the Islamists. The chants also asked the Hindus to either convert to Islam or leave the valley. With these examples alone it is acceptable to conclude that Hindus have been historically at a disadvantaged position with respect to Muslims in India and have often been victimised, brutally, by Muslims. Other than collective crimes by the Muslim community like that of the Islamic invasion and the plight of Hindus in Kashmir, several crimes at the individual level too have proved that Muslims are more likely to victimise Hindus and this barring the acts of rioting that the Muslim community has initiated. A large section of Muslims believe that Hindus are Kafirs and idol-worshippers who deserve sub-human treatment, even death. The mentality is evident in several cases like that of Kamlesh Tiwari, where he was brutally murdered for allegedly insulting the Prophet of Islam. Without getting into a long-winded section explaining an established truth, a list of 50 crimes that were committed by Muslims against Hindus in a short span of time can be read to get the drift. With the established truth that Muslims are more likely to target Hindus, in crimes where Muslims are the perpetrators, mentioning the religious identity of the Muslim is pertinent considering it is the intersectionality of the Hindu and Muslim identities of the victim and perpetrator that puts the Hindus at higher risk of being victimised. Why mentioning Muslim identity is even more pertinent when the victim is a Hindu woman Intersectionality is a sociological concept says that intersecting identifies give rise to unique models of oppression. We have already established the Hindu identity itself puts a victim at a higher risk when the perpetrator is a Muslim. With intersecting identities of gender and religion, the Hindu woman is placed at a higher risk than Hindu men, for example, or Muslim women when the perpetrator is a Muslim. Historically, Hindu women have been oppressed brutally by Muslims. One recalls the rampant rapes during the Islamic rule, and even in Kashmir where women were brutally raped by Islamists. It is a technique that many Islamists adapt to convert Kafir women to Islam. In recent times too, we have seen several cases where the Muslim perpetrator victimised the Hindu woman. There have been rampant cases of Love-Jihad where Muslim men trap Hindu women with the excuse of a relationship and then, convert, rape and/or murder. It is thus established that the intersecting identities of gender (women) and religion (Hindu) do put women at a higher risk. In individual cases, one can never judge the risk factor. Even when Dalit women are victimised and their identities mentioned as such, it is entirely possible that in a particular case, the intersecting identities of gender and caste played no role in her victimisation. However, the identity is mentioned due to Intersectionality, as a matter of principle keeping in mind the history of abuse and oppression faced by Dalit women. In the case of Hindu women too, nobody says that in every case, the Hindu woman’s religion and gender identity is necessarily a contributing factor for the Muslim perpetrator, but as a principle, considering the historicity of atrocities by Muslims on Hindu women, the identity of the perpetrator must be mentioned. In the Telangana case, for example, the head of the gang that committed the heinous crime was Mohammad Pasha, a Muslim. The victim was a Hindu woman. Now, we do not know the religiosity of Pasha himself, however, as a principle, one is to ask if the women would have been at less risk if she was a Hijabi woman instead and was the victim at a higher risk because of her intersectional identity of being a Hindu woman in front of a Muslim perpetrator. While there is no correct answer considering we do not know the level of indoctrination or religiosity of Pasha, the identity of the Muslim perpetrator is to be mentioned, just as the caste and gender identity of the Dalit woman victim is mentioned regardless of motivating factors of the crime. What happens when the victim is a Dalit woman and a perpetrator is a Muslim man? We have already established that the Muslim identity of the perpetrator is an essential component and should be mentioned when the victim if a Hindu woman. However, what happens when the victim is a Dalit woman and the perpetrator is a Muslim man? The media is often extremely dishonest when it comes to such crimes. As explained in detail, intersectionality is when the intersecting identities of an individual put her at a higher risk. As also discussed above, when the perpetrator is of Muslim identity, the intersecting identities of both the perp and the victim play a role in determining the risk factor that the victim faces. When a Muslim man victimises a Dalit woman, one must ask the very important question of which intersecting identity of that woman put her in harm’s way. Was it her identity as a Dalit woman or as a Hindu woman? When the perpetrator is a Muslim, one has to assume that for him, the differentiation between a Brahmin woman and a Dalit woman does not exist. For him, the two intersecting identities that put the victim at a higher risk is that of gender (woman) and that of her religion (Hindu) and not of her caste (Dalit). For a Muslim, per his religion, all Hindu women are Kafirs and thus, the Muslim will not differentiate between different castes. In such a scenario, one has to ask why the media and the Left continue to highlight the Dalit woman identity of the victim instead of the intersecting identities of a Muslim man victimising a Hindu woman? While the concept in itself holds merit, it is this chicanery of the media that raises several doubts on their intent. Conclusion This theory of Intersectionality, while a sociological concept is rooted in Marxism. While the roots and their explanation is a subject for another day, it suffices to say that the concept itself is rooted in communism and its allied offshoots such as feminism. One has to wonder why then does the Left often raise hell when the Muslim identity of the perpetrator is mentioned? Is it because if their denial to accept empirical evidence that Muslims are often the oppressing force or their blatant agenda that Hindu lives aren’t as precious as Muslim lives? Their misplaced notions that Dalits are not Hindus and are in fact closer to Muslims in their political fantasy? Either way, while we reject Communism, their theory of Intersectionality, to have merit, must be applied to all categories of crimes, which also means that the Muslim identity of the perpetrator must be explicitly mentioned when the victim is a Hindu woman. Identity is the principal focus of the theory of intersectionality. It mandates that every individual be viewed through the prism of his collective identity, This theory is extremely mainstream in the Left and acquired the status of a hallowed doctrine in academia. Concepts such as ‘Savarna privilege’ and ‘White Male Privilege’ have their origins in this theory. Therefore, leftists cannot discard this theory simply because the current situation does not suit their agenda. It must be applied in all situations uniformly. Leftists cannot argue that every individual and situation must be viewed through the prism of the identities of the individuals involved and then claim that the Muslim identity of the rapist does not matter when the victim is a Hindu woman.

We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. Rangeela Rasool, 295A, partition: History threatens to repeat as demands for a special law to punish ‘gustakh-e-rasool’ grows We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India - and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today. Nupur J Sharma 13 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Nupur Sharma, the former BJP spokesperson, has been caught in a dangerous storm after she made certain innocuous comments during a TimesNow debate. After Indian Muslims like AltNews’ co-founder Mohammad Zubair dog-whistled against her, she was declared a ‘blasphemer’ and several Islamist outfits, including Taliban and Al Qaeda, are now demanding her head on pike. Amid the death threats, Indian Islamic outfits have come out to demand a law that punishes those who speak ‘against’ Islam. Darul Uloom Deoband, an Uttar Pradesh-based Islamist outfit, has demanded that Nupur Sharma be punished for her statements against Islam. They said that those who make objectionable statements against the symbols of Islam “to spread hatred in the country” need to be punished severely. But these are the statements one expects from Islamist outfits. However, the statement by Maulana Mufti Abul Qasim, the VC of Darul Deoband, is a telling sign of the things to come. Qasim issued a statement on Wednesday demanding a special law that strictly punishes those who insult Islam. Reportedly, Maulana said, “I strongly condemn the insulting remarks against our beloved Prophet. Religious sentiments of the followers of any faith cannot be provoked in the name of freedom of expression. Insulting the Prophet will not be tolerated by Muslims in India or abroad”. According to reports, he further said that the Indian government should enact a special law “to deal with cases where religious symbols of Muslims are targeted”. The Maulana further spoke about communal harmony while talking about how the Muslim community deserves a special law. He said, “India is a secular country and people here have been living together for centuries. These communal and extremist elements are not only harming the country’s social harmony but also disturbing the nation’s secular fabric and ethos”. At the very outset, let us marvel at how the Islamist’s hate is also dressed up as harm to the “social fabric” caused by their victim. Essentially, they fracture the harmony and social fabric with arson, rioting, protests, and slogans like “Gustakh-e-Rasool Ki Saza, Sar Tan Se Juda”, and then blame their victim, who they want to behead for hurting their fragile emotions just enough to send them down the path of violence. This sleight of hand is almost amusing as it keeps repeating itself over and over again. They take offence to just about anything, run riots, commit violence and then, blame the person exercising their freedom of speech for fracturing social fabric and harmony. It almost appears as a blackmailing tactic. Do as we please or we will burn your country and blame you for it. Besides this oft-repeated pattern, what was carefully tucked away in his statement, was the demand for a “special law” meant only to protect the frangible feelings of the Muslim community. While blaming the victim for the violence unleashed by the Islamists, Maulana Mufti Abdul Qasim demanded that the state enact a special law that outlaws hurting the sentiments of Muslims and insulting their religious symbols. The demand has come from several other Islamic quarters as well. In fact, Bollywood actor Naseeruddin Shah also said that in Islamic nations, the crime of Blasphemy would be punishable by death, however, in India, no action has been taken. While he did not directly ask for a special law or for the death penalty, his insinuations were rather clear – the ‘moderate Muslim’ would be more than happy if a special law was enacted that specifically punished, in the harshest terms, those who hurt feelings of the Muslim community. The demand for a special law may seem innocuous and an impossibility that we must summarily ignore, however, one has to acknowledge that what is happening now is a dangerous repeat of the events that led to the breaking up of India. In this regard, it would bode well to remember the case of Mahashay Rajpal, who published Rangeela Rasool and was ultimate assassinated for it. We mostly here that Mahashay Rajpal was assassinated for publishing satirical work on Prophet Muhammad called Rangeela Rasool, but we seldom hear why he chose to publish the book. In 1923, Muslims published two particularly offensive books to Hindus. “Krishna teri geeta jalani padegi” used derogatory and vulgar language against Shri Krishna and other Hindu deities and “Uniseevi sadi ka maharshi” which contained derogatory remarks on Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati (incidentally written by an Ahmadi). We must bear in mind that this was an era before the existence of Section 295A, therefore, thankfully, the conversation around the law cannot be used to skirt the issue of radical Islam and how its street power not only affects change in policy and law, but also has scant regard for the law of the land when they decide to eliminate those who do “gustakhi” against “Rasool”. In response to this provocation by Islamists, Pandit Chamupati Lal, a close friend of Mahashay Rajpal, wrote a short biography of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed. “Rangeela Rasool” was a short pamphlet which satirised the life of the Prophet of Islam. Pandit Chamupati made Mahashay Rajpal promise that he would never reveal the name of the author – he knew the consequences of it. Anonymously published under the name “doodh ka doodh aur panee ka panee”, the book enraged Muslims. Staying true to the values of one-way brotherhood, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi wrote in his pamphlet “Young India”, condemning Rangeela Rasool. While Gandhi ignored the provocation by Muslims, by the end of June 1924, the colonial government banned the book. The Muslim community, partly emboldened by MK Gandhi’s endorsement of their hurt sentiments and whitewashing of the provocation against Hindus, filed multiple cases against the book under 153A. In May 1927, Mahashay Rajpal, who published the book, was acquitted of all charges with the court observing that commentary based on facts on historical figures, including the prophet of Islam, cannot be said to promote enmity between groups. As soon as the verdict was delivered, Muslim mobs went into a frenzy. They rioted and demanded the head of Mahashay Rajpal. They were chants about how the murder of Rajpal was acceptable because, under Sharia, the punishment for blasphemy is death. With the Muslim mobs going on a rampage, 295A was passed to assuage the feelings of the mobs and in the same year, there were two unsuccessful attempts at Mahashay Rajpal’s life. On April 6th, 1929 a 19-year-old carpenter named Ilm ud din stabbed Mahashay Rajpal on his chest eight times while he was seated in the outer verandah of his shop. Though he was offered to give up the name of the author, Pandit Chamupati Lal, during the court proceedings, he refused and did not yield. He paid the price for it. He paid the price for publishing that book despite the court acquitting him and the Muslims getting a special law to protect their fragile feelings. Not too long after India was torn apart by those who were convinced that the Muslim community could be placated. Before the Rangeela Rasool controversy, Hindus saw the Khilafat movement, the support it got from Congress and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and after that, Hindus saw the rise of a Muslim leader like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leading India’s partition. While Rangeela Rasool did not cause the partition, there was a common thread – a clear, stark, unmissable thread. Mahashay Rajpal’s murderer was represented in the court of law by Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Iqbal, who is eulogised today by the Left Liberals, wrote a song in his honour. Pakistan gave him the honour of Ghazi. The partition of India happened on religious lines. It was not because Hindus did not concede to the demands for concessions made by Muslims or because Muslims felt persecuted in syncretic India – it was because the Muslim community came together and proclaimed that they were a nation unto themselves and that they could not coexist with Kafirs, ie Hindus. The idea of Islamic religious nationalism significantly impacted the psyche of the Muslim community where their allegiance to the Ummah, the global Muslim brotherhood, far outweighed their allegiance toward India. The Muslim community asserted that the Muslims of India were a “nation” with their distinct religious, cultural, and political ideology and could not possibly survive with Hindus, who they considered a separate nation, per se. Did the Two-Nation Theory result from the feeling of persecution and alienation by the Muslim community as so many Left historians would have us believe? Was it first propagated by Veer Savarkar as they claim? Certainly not. Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University said in 1876, “I am convinced now that Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from each other.” Seven years later, he voiced similar sentiments. He said, “Friends, in India, there live two prominent nations which are distinguished by the names of Hindus and Mussalmans…To be a Hindu or a Muslim is a matter of internal faith which has nothing to do with mutual relationships and external conditions…Hence, leave God’s share to God and concern yourself with the share that is yours…India is the home of both of us…By living so long in India, the blood of both have [sic] changed.” Twelve years later, he stated, “Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?… Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.” Jinnah had later famously said, “It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality,” he said. “Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.” This was said by Jinnah in 1940 in an address to the Muslim League at the time, only a few years after he represented the killer of Mahashay Rajpal. The murder of Mahashay Rajpal was the Two-Nation Theory being written with the blood of a man in painful detail. The Muslim community truly believed that Hindus and Muslims were too distinct in their faith and way of life to ever live together peacefully. In the case of Rangeela Rasool, those who had written provocative books about Hindu Devi and Devatas were never harmed. Their initial provocation was glossed over completely by MK Gandhi and the intelligentsia at the time, so much so, that most people don’t even know today that Rangeela Rasool was a response to the Hindu faith being satirised and not a product of blind hate. In that situation, the Muslim community itself thought that the insult to Hindus was acceptable, naturally, since insulting the faith of the Kafirs is par for the course in the Islamic faith, however, Gustakh-e-Rasool invited a death penalty, whether the law of the land endorsed that punishment or not. The Muslim community wanted to live by Sharia and whether the state granted their wish or not, they were more than willing to snatch it, enforce it, and do what it takes – which meant taking a knife and murdering Mahashay Rajpal. The fact that Jinnah defended the killer of Rajpal also makes evident that the murder itself was an act of bravery for the Islamic world. He was defended by the very leader who would, a few years later, create a “land of the pure” for the Musalmans because according to their divine law, the death penalty was justified for the Kafir. Koenraad Elst mentions this in his book ‘Decolonising the Hindu Mind’. Today, when there are demands for a special law to protect the easily-hurt sentiments of the Muslim community as a result of the comments by Nupur Sharma on TimesNow, one must look back and take lessons from history. Nupur Sharma, who seems to have shaken the foundation of several Islamic nations, not just the Islamists back home, made the comments she did after Muslim panellists on TimesNow and other channels repeatedly mocked the Shivling found in the disputed Gyanvapi structure. There were Maulanas who mocked why Hindus worship a penis, others who pointed to random structures in the middle of the road to tell Hindus to go worship that structure as well, and overall, the painting of the Hindu community as a barbarian cult simply because they wanted their places of worship back, once demolished by Muslim invaders. Much like the Rangeela Rasool controversy, the initial provocation against the Hindu community was forgotten, however, Nupur’s response to the comments was turned into an international rallying point for the Islamic world, with ‘Gustakh-e-Rasool ki saza sar tan se juda’ slogans, enactments of her beheading, her effigies being hung in the middle of the road and more. The Islamist mobs that took the street have scant regard for the law of the land, much like the mobs that rioted after Rangeela Rasool’s first edition sold out quickly, and they truly believe that their Islamic laws are above the laws of the land – the laws made by Kafirs living in a Kafir state. If the Rangeela Rasool controversy and the murder of Mahashay Rajpal was the Two-Nation Theory in action, then, the Nupur Sharma incident is its action replay. Karl Marx, the Father of Communism, stated in 1854, “The Koran and the Mussulman legislation emanating from it reduce the geography and ethnography of the various people to the simple and convenient distinction of two nations and of two countries; those of the Faithful and of the Infidels. The Infidel is “harby,” i.e. the enemy. Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever.” Back then, we had the likes of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who condemned Mahashay Rajpal and not the frenzied Muslim mob. Back then, we had Gandhi embrace the Moplah Muslims and blame the Hindus for their own genocide after he gave his support to the Khilafat movement. Back then, we saw a new law promulgated simply to spare the delicate feelings of the Islamists. Today, we hear the Liberals condemn Nupur Sharma instead of the frenzied Muslim mob. Today, we have political leaders ousting Nupur Sharma and asserting that she affected our relationship with the Islamic world, resulting in the Muslim mobs taking to the streets and rioting after Jumma Namaz. Today, we have those who deny the very existence of radical Islam and the challenges that India faces and those, who called the Delhi anti-Hindu riots an ‘anti-Muslim pogrom’. Today, we see the demands for a special law to spare the feelings of the Islamists. Bharat stands at a delicate precipice. We refused to recognise the Two-Nation Theory in action back then and if we choose to close our eyes today, if we choose to repeat the mistake of fixating on the idea of brotherhood, pluralism, syncretic culture and all the other punch words that politicians like to mouth, Maa Bharati will see a time soon, where her very existence would be under threat yet again. We would see a time where we would wish we had learnt our lessons from the first partition of India – and that day, we would look at our children and find it onerous to explain why we did nothing when we could stop what appears to be an eventuality today.

Nupur J Sharma's journey outlining her commitment towards Hindu rights, media challenges in terms of shifting the “Overton Window” and civilisational advocacy through her editorial efforts. Why I am About I was once an anonymous nobody – sitting in my cocoon and running a small business in a quiet area of Kolkata. Nobody knew me. Nobody cared who I was and what I thought. Perhaps my father did, because he was the other one who cared to listen to my endless rants. One day in 2017, I got a call by a man I deeply admired for his wit. My would-be CEO, Rahul Roushan, asked me if I wanted to lead OpIndia.com – a small website which had the temerity to exist – against the media tides. It wasn’t much then. But it was a website where I wrote infrequently because I have always believed that words matter. I knew nothing about digital publishing or journalism. But I so desperately wanted to write. I took up this job believing that it would give me a much needed respite from the mundane, work-a-day career I had. I did not particularly understand money and did not much care for it either. I said yes. Overnight, I quit the business. I quit because I felt drawn, not to this profession, but to the prospect of writing for a living. OpIndia as a publication grew exponentially. The day I did my first investigative story, I remember sitting in my father’s chamber and watching Republic TV as Kapil Sibal raved and ranted about the story – threatening to sue me. This was the dopamine hit I had been looking for. I felt exhilarated. I felt liberated. It was a strange feeling because as an average middle-class new mother, threats of a lawsuit should have scared me. It didn’t. The only thought in my head was – “I did it”. The lawsuit never came because the story was solid. From the urge to just write to the proliferating growth of OpIndia, somewhere along the line, I changed. For most of my life and at the beginning of my career with OpIndia, I thought reconciliation was possible. It was hope that drove me then. It is unbridled, unadulterated rage that drives me now. Every dead body, every incident of brutality unleashed against Hindus that I documented drove me further away from “I am sure they will condemn at least this” to “I will only stand for my own”. Over the years, I have closely followed the sheer brutality with which the Left and Islamist nexus hunted those they don’t agree with - their hate gift wrapped in punch words like “secularism”, “harmony”, “morality”, “truth”, “brotherhood”, “idea of India”, and so much more. I have documented them giving a political context to the brutal hacking of Hindu activists. I have watched them ensure that Hindus lose their jobs merely for speaking about the Islamic invasions. I have watched them celebrate the death of Hindus and dance on their dead skull. I have watched them dismiss how Islamists abduct, rape, convert young Hindu girls. Pretend to be Hindus and then convert them to Islam after they’re in too deep. I watched them stay quiet after Hindu girls were brutally dishonored and hacked. They turned a well-planned killing spree against Hindus into an “anti-Muslim pogrom”. Those of us who documented the truth were hounded, abused, smeared, character assassinated, black listed by publishers. They cropped images of images where weapons could be seen atop mosques. They weaponized the innocence of Hindus. A Hindu chants Jai Shree Ram because of centuries of unshakable faith. A Hindu puts the sticker of Hanuman on his car because he believes He is the protector. They took that innocent faith and turned it into a marker of “terrorism”. Hindutva was meant to arm Hinduism to adapt to a world order based on nation states. A concept which for Muslims meant Ummah and for Hindus meant this civilizational state. Hindus gave up their Monarchs to get “secularism” and they needed Hindutva to find their political identity. Hindutva is meant as a shield against those who weaponize the innocence of Hindus and because they needed to weaponize the innocence of Hindus, Hindutva had to be tarnished by the Ummah and the Global Left Conglomerate. I watched it happen. I documented it. They regularly unleash a Nazi-esque propaganda, globally, where the persecution or beheading of any of us would not draw condemnation, but cheers and celebration. When we are murdered, when we are lynched, when we are beheaded, we will be blamed for it - even by our own Judges. They have lied for years. Fake Jai Shree Ram crimes. Fake threats. Fake Musalman Khatre Main hai. Fake church crimes. Fake “Hindus raped a nun” (turned out to be Bangladeshis). Fake history. Fake alternate realities. They have lied, cheated, misled, to demonize us. All of us. They guilt tripped us enough so millions of Hindus shut up, sit down, and don’t celebrate the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict - a battle Hindus won after 500 years of sacrifice. “You will provoke them”, they said. And we. shut. up. Weaponized the innocent of Hindus, as I said. When journalists who were not blatantly sympathetic to the cause of the Left and/or Islamists were hounded, dragged and arrested, they laughed. When death threats were issued to Hindu women, they justified. When I was hounded out of West Bengal for speaking the truth, they cheered. I am now driven by rage. Rage that comes with knowing what they are doing. What they have done. What they want to do. The rage that comes from watching and documenting Hindus being beheaded. The rage that comes with them justifying our civilizational demise. I would, ideally, like to be dewy eyed too. To stand for lofty ideals uniformly. Nobody is born with rage. Mine comes from their conduct. Between fairness and survival, I will choose the survival of MY PEOPLE, a people they want wiped out. When you hold us by the hair and try to drown us repeatedly, you cannot expect us, any of us, me, to stand with a rope to rescue you when you drown in the same pond. You just can’t. That’s not human nature. Retribution the purest emotion. I have been asked several times why I chose to fight for Hindus and only Hindus when I could have simply feigned neutrality and achieved the success, I can’t possibly achieve being honest about my work. I have been asked to speak for the rights of the very Islamists and Leftists who want me dead. Who want us dead. Who want this civilization wiped out. I won’t. I never have and I never will. I never will because this higher burden of morality on Hindus will be the death of us. “We are better than them”, I am told repeatedly. I say - We are. But we will certainly be deader than them if we hold on to this moral high ground and sacrifice survival of Hindus because we have this undying need to be morally superior. We are morally superior because we didn’t start the fire. We didn’t start this cycle of hate and viciousness. We didn’t behead. We didn’t kill. We sacrificed our own so peace could be maintained. Enough. Thus far and no further. I believe that I exist not because it was my divine destiny to be a journalist, but perhaps, be a conduit in shifting the Overton Window – so what is considered “radical” today by the deracinated, comatose Hindus, is considered a policy tomorrow by those who rule the world. The Overton Window, simply put, shifts when an acceptable idea becomes popular and then translates to policy. Or better yet, when a radical idea journeys its way through being considered ‘sensible’ to ‘popular’ and then translates into policy. There are broadly 6 degrees of acceptable of public ideas: Unthinkable Radical Acceptable Sensible Popular Policy What was unthinkable yesterday, could possibly be a policy tomorrow. The idea that Bharat was a land of Hindu consciousness was an unthinkable proposition a few years ago because of the deracination of the pollical class. Today, it is an acceptable dinner table conversation and perhaps, the CAA even signaled that Bharat was discreetly whispering that the then “unthinkable” idea could possibly be a policy tomorrow. While there have been signs of hope, there has been a sea of despair. While my soul prays for a revival, every morning, I wake up to documenting our end. OpIndia As OpIndia emerges as one of the few voices speaking against the global persecution of Hindus, in my capacity as the editor-in-chief, I have aimed to shine the light on cries unheard, issues pushed under the rug, taboos that are meant to be broken and history that had been whitewashed. Explore

Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. As Rahul Gandhi equates Hinduism with Ahimsa, time to remember why Hindus must not fall for 'another Gandhi' Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi's speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was - an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi - we certainly cannot afford another blunder. Nupur J Sharma 1 July 2024 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Calling it as one sees it is a burden that some bear. While it is often branded a virtue, for me, it has been a physiological reflex, often, much to my detriment. It is almost as if I am simply incapable of shutting up, even when shutting up would certainly have its rewards. One subject that I have, yet again, refused to shut up about and invited the anger of many fellow Hindus, is the merciless defanging of the Hindu community by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I genuinely and truly believe that the bane of the Hindu community was internalising the lessons of misplaced Ahimsa, predominantly spoon-fed by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi – a man who was ‘christened’, quite literally, as a messiah. The internalised guilt inflicted on the community even when it wanted to defend itself crippled us for generations and to date, we pay the price for trading our right to survival for brotherhood – a sentiment that is delicately nursed by carefully inculcated delusions. I have, of course, been conferred with several not-so-flattering titles for the views I hold on the issue. In fact, I have often had arguments with my colleague Rahul Roushan on the subject as well. While I believe MK Gandhi was the Hindu community’s undoing, Rahul seems to be far more forgiving. He has repeatedly asserted that he forgives MK Gandhi for his shenanigans because he was a practicing Hindu and was not Hinduphobic – like Nehru, for example. While I insist that MK Gandhi and the ideals he professed must be torn down and dethroned, Rahul believes that Hindus gain nothing by demonising Gandhi and is willing to let him have the throne along with others who perhaps deserve the pedestal. I had just about moved on from MK Gandhi and started to shift my focus to Dr BR Ambedkar when I heard another ‘Gandhi’ trying the same tricks that MK Gandhi employed, only in a far more sinister manner. Rahul Gandhi in the parliament said , “Modi ji said once that India has never attacked any other country. There is a reason for that. Because this country is a country of Ahimsa (non-violence), this country is not a country of fear. So all our great personalities spoke about Ahimsa, spoke about removing fear… daro mat, darao mat… and on the other hand, Shiv ji says daro mat, darao mat, shows the Abhay Mudra, talks about Ahimsa and buries his Trishul on the ground. And the people who call themselves Hindus talk about violence, hate and lies 24 hours. You are not a Hindu. In Hinduism, it is clearly mentioned that one should stand with the truth…”. After this, Rahul Gandhi randomly held out his hand to show the Abhay Mudra (essentially, claiming that it was the Congress hand symbol). Now, we know this rant by Rahul Gandhi is insidious. We know it is sinister. But my reaction to Rahul Gandhi’s rant this time was far more circumspect. I found myself not dismissing him as a blithering fool, but instead, trying to put his speech in context – historical and contemporary. For those who support PM Modi politically, their immediate reaction would be to say that Rahul Gandhi insulted the entire Hindu community by claiming that Hindus only talk about violence and hate. Of course, this is the simplest interpretation of what he said. I, however, believe there is more to it. There are two specific components to what Rahul Gandhi said in the parliament. First, Hinduism’s core tenet is that of non-violence. The other is that Modi does not represent all Hindus – this he said after PM Modi made a rare intervention saying that Rahul Gandhi’s characterisation of all Hindus as a people who espouse violence is a serious matter. Both these components were meant to specifically cater to disgruntled Modi supporters and the young voter – who is fed the “Sabarmati ke sant” delusion as a matter of state policy. As for the second component, I believe it is meant to specifically cater to the ‘disgruntled Hindu voter’ – a segment that has started to look beyond PM Modi for a resolution to Hindu issues. This disgruntled voter believes that the political support base has started hyphenating PM Modi and Hindu issues, often sacrificing the latter for the interest of the former. For both these segments, it is essential to see through the sinister, British-esque designs of Rahul Gandhi. Ahimsa – a central tenet of Hinduism? One of the first instances when Hindus were defanged by the British was with the passage of The Indian Arms Act 1878. Right after the revolt of 1857, the British, petrified of another armed resistance to their occupations, passed a law that barred Indians from carrying firearms without a license. The British understood that their best chance to continue their occupation of Bharat was through the de-arming and de-fanging of Hindus. The de-arming and neutering of Hindus to ensure minimum resistance to their own subjugation became a template – followed not only by the British and MK Gandhi but continued to this day by the party created by the British – the Congress party. Rahul Gandhi, quite confidently, spoke about Ahimsa being the central tenet of Sanatan Dharma – as if those who pick up weapons to defend themselves and/or the community are committing a cardinal sin. One can’t possibly blame him for his narrow view of Sanatan Dharma, given his Christian mother must have imparted the hollow punchlines that come with religious moral science lectures in Catholic schools as the gospel truth – at least theoretically, which is never followed by the faithful but prove as a great tool for religious brainwashing by inculcating a false sense of moral superiority. Sanatan Dharma has an illustrious history and the Kshatra tradition which revolves around the destruction of evil and is far from the neutered, comatose version of Hinduism that Congress wants to peddle for their own political gains. One of the primary root words of Kshatra is ‘himsayam’ which relates to the Kshatra’s duty to destroy evil. The etymological explanation of the word Kshatra is, in itself, “one who protects from harm and injury”, the fundamental quality of the Kshatra being to protect Dharma and therefore, the Kshatra-guna itself is related to protection – by force – if necessary. The pacifists, who follow the path shown by MK Gandhi, often feel squeamish because they believe the Kshatra-guna relates to the promotion of violence, however, that is, again, only a result of the historical brainwashing – a political project to knock Hindus down and keep them there so the pliable community can accept their own subjugation without putting up a fight. It is, therefore, said that “without the element of protection, Matsya-Nyaya (big fish eat little fish) would prevail”. It is the eternal Sanatan wisdom that says that if there has to be order, there has to be punishment and only if there is punishment, will order emerge. Kamandakiya – Nitisara , in fact, opens with the praise of the King who holds the sceptre to mete out punishment to maintain order. In the book Ksattra, the authors write, “Among the Vedas, the Rig-veda has been associated with Brahmanas, Yajur-veda with Kṣattriyas, and Sama-veda with Vaisyas. The Yajur-veda has been hailed as an action-oriented, ritual-intensive Veda; while Rig-veda is more aligned to prayer, Sama-veda is aligned to worship, and Atharva-veda forms a bridge between the physical and the spiritual. Yajur-veda is a symbol of kṣättra, of the protection of the good, and of destruction of enemies. The upa-veda associated with Yajur-veda is Artha-Veda (or Dhanur-veda). While explaining a mantra, the commentator Mahīdāsa says, “Dhanur-veda (archery) is the science of war.” Through the Dhanur-veda we see the entire system of war. Yajñas like Rajasuya, Sautramani, Vajapeya, and Aśva- medha that are described in the Yajur-veda are famous as kṣāttra-yajñas. The Vajapeya-Yaga is for preparing various units of the army in order to reclaim lost land. The Sautrāmani-Yaga is for bringing allies together. The Rajasuya-yaga is conducted when an emperor is born or created. The Aśva-medha is for expanding the kingdom and establishing sovereign status over a large portion of land. We see unbridled kṣättra in all these yajñas. There are elements of kṣättra even in the traditional practices related to worship and invoking the Supreme. The unfortunate situation today is that a worship of cowardice has entered military science. We have infused our military with a narrow, ritualistic mindset, thus sapping bravery and energy. However, our Vedic rşis brought an element of kṣättra even in worship and ritual”. It is, therefore, evident that Sanatan has a strong, illustrious tradition of Kshatra – where force and punishment are used to restore Dharma, protect the weak, and defend the ideals we hold dear. Nowhere in the Yajur-Veda, or any Veda, is Ahimsa in its bastardized, Gandhi version mentioned – it is only an illusion, a grand lie, sold to Hindus to ensure they remain guilty, neutered, and defenceless. What betrays the Janeudhari version of himself which Rahul Gandhi projects, is his absolute infantile interpretation of Shiva. To allude that Mahadev buried his Trishul because he believed in Gandhi’s Ahimsa is not just infantile but asinine. Mahadev, is quite literally, the God of Destruction and anyone who is a practicing Hindu would certainly not propagate that he destroys with Ahimsa. The Shivlinga itself is a manifestation of Raudra. His Avatars, like Kaal Bhairav, represent the annihilation of time and preservation of the universe – a symbol of fearlessness, the guardian of Temples, the destroyer of enemies and evil spirits. Of course, there is spiritual symbolism of the Trishul which represents the Nadis, levels of consciousness, and more, however, Rahul Gandhi’s reductionist interpretation of Shiva and his Trishul to talk about some binary of Gandhi-esque pacifism is so outlandish that one has to wonder how someone so oblivious of Sanatan Dharma can even have the confidence to talk about the tenets of the faith. In his supreme confidence, which is, unfortunately, the hallmark of the unlettered, Rahul Gandhi wanted to present Sanatan Dharma as some sort of a hippy cult where its participants are high on some form of hallucinogens, lying around in their comatose stupor, talking about universal peace. In reality, Sanatan has a long tradition of Akharas where community defence was one of the fulcrums of collective survival. Yes, Sanatan Dharma guides every shade and stage of existence. From prosperity to happiness, satisfaction, love, peace – inner and community, punya, karma, moksha, and more – however – it does not look down upon self and community defence, it does not glamourise pacifism and cowardice – in fact – it draws lessons from wars fought for the preservation of Dharma and honour. Non-violence: An age-old political project to keep Hindus neutered and subjugated I believe the very existence of the Hindu community hinges on one simple question – Do we wish to emulate MK Gandhi or Gopal Patha – in the face of aggression and violence? In 1946, the massacre of Hindus in Bengal was rather intricately planned. Jinnah is recalled having said that he would either have India divided or India burnt and that he had given up on Constitutional methods to demand the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah had chosen the 16th of August as Direction Action Day because it was the 18th day of Ramzan, the day when the Battle of Badr was fought and won – a war fought by Prophet Muhammad himself, against the Kaffirs, and is considered to be won by Allah’s divine intervention by Muslims. The battle led to the violent occupation of Mecca. On the 16th of August, Calcutta was littered with posters lionizing Jinnah and reminding Muslims that they had to follow the footsteps of the Prophet. It is reported that Syed Muhammad Usman, mayor of Calcutta, had issued a widely circulated leaflet that said: Kafer! Toder dhongsher aar deri nei! Sarbik hotyakando ghotbei! (Infidels! Your end is not far away! You will be massacred!). The aim was to make Bengal ‘land of the pure’ and rid it of the Kaffirs (Hindus). The aim was to wage another Battle of Badr, in which the Muslims would conquer the heathens. What followed on the 16th right after the Jumma Namaz is Muslims going on a rampage, beheading Hindus, chopping their limbs off, and raping Hindu women. Several women were taken as sex slaves by those who were fighting with the religious fervour of the Battle of Badr. In the Kesoram Cotton Mills at Lichubagan in the Muslim-dominated Metiabruz area, Muslim mobs entered and beheaded over 600 labourers. The Hindus, neutered and asked by Gandhi to die with a smile on their face hardly fought back. There was a mass exodus from Bengal that marked millions fleeing because the massacre seemed too brutal to fight against. During the Direct Action Day, on the 17th of August after 2 days of Hindus being massacred, Gopal Chandra Mukhopadhyay rose like a phoenix. Gopal Patha (Patha means ‘lamb’. He was called so because he ran a mutton shop) had already founded the Bharat Jatiya Bahini, an organization of young men to help fellow citizens during a natural calamity. On the 17th, Gopal Patha turned from a philanthropist to a warrior, ready to defend his people. Throughout the night, Gopal Patha, along with his young men from the Bharat Jayati Bahini worked on a plan on how they could defend Hindus from the Muslim barbarians. The Marwaris offered finances, others spent the night making weapons for them. Muslim League chief minister of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy , and the Muslim League goons had decided on the 17th that they were going to take two more days to complete the annihilation of Hindus. But they had not taken into consideration their greatest roadblock. Gopal Patha. From the 18th to the 20th, Gopal Patha and his men put up a brave fight, paying the Muslim League goons back in equal measure, if not more. Historian Sandip Bandopadhyay wrote, “They faced resistance everywhere. Hindu youths counter-attacked with such ferocity that the Muslim League men had to flee. Many were killed. Emboldened by their success in taking on and defeating their Islamist attackers, Hindu youths took the fight to Muslim-majority areas and started killing Islamist men. They did not, however, touch Muslim women and children or the aged and the infirm”. During the Noakhali riots, countless Hindus were raped and murdered. The converted Hindus were made to write declarations that they had accepted Islam out of their free will and Hindus in the 2000 square mile area were made to pay the Jaziya. When MK Gandhi visited Naokhali, he was rebuked by the Muslim League and after that, he travelled to Bihar to stop the retaliatory violence by the Hindus. There, he is famed to have said that Hindus must leave Noakhali or die – this, because the Muslim League had asked him to quell the violence, the same Muslim League that was raping Hindu women, beheading Hindu women, and waging a war against Kaffirs. MK Gandhi famously asked Gopal Patha to lay his weapons down and surrender. Gopal Patha refused. He refused to give into Gandhi’s pacifism to appease the murderous Jihadis. He refused to give into the delusion that surrendering, being cowardly, and dying with a smile on his face was a virtue. Gopal Patha upheld the tenets of Sanatan Dharma – he preserved Dharma. He protected Dharma. He protected Hindus. He did not give up. In fact, while MK Gandhi wanted Gopal Patha to lay down his weapons, in the same year in a prayer meeting, he advised the women in East Bengal to commit suicide by poison or some other means to avoid dishonour. He told the women to suffocate themselves or to bite their tongues to end their lives. In 1921, while the Malabar Muslims were slaughtering Hindus, raping women and forcefully converting Hindus, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi insisted that they had committed a sin against the “Khilafat movement” and not the Hindus. In fact, he went ahead and insisted that Hindus must remain “non-violent” in the face of “extreme provocation”. While Hindus and Sikhs were being massacred and raped in Pakistan right after the partition, MK Gandhi said , “Hindus and Sikhs should become brave and show that even if all the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan were to be killed there would be no retaliation in India. I do not want to live to see our people copy Pakistan. If I am to live I shall ask every Hindu and every Sikh not to touch a single Muslim. It is cowardice to kill Muslims and we must become brave and not cowards”. On April 6, 1947, Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi said– “If Muslims want to kill us (Hindus), we must face death bravely. Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our (Hindu) lives”. There was, indeed, a running theme in what Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi told Hindus. He repeatedly told Hindus that their faith taught them to surrender to evil, murderous mobs who were raping, beheading, murdering, and dishonouring them. He repeatedly told Hindus that his pacifism was a manifestation of the very essence of Sanatan Dharma and if Hindus so much as dared to defend themselves, they would be going against the tenets of their faith. MK Gandhi told Hindus that cowardice was in fact bravery and bravery was betrayal. He truly and genuinely wanted Hindus to believe that by being cowardly and surrendering to evil unquestioningly, Hindus would be doing the greatest service to this land with Hindu consciousness because that is what Hinduism stood for. This glorification of cowardice as a virtue, only for Hindus, was diligently furthered as a political project. It was, and still is, accepted wisdom that as long as Hindus are kept under the spell of Ahimsa, the community would give up their bargaining power with the state. For the ultimate retention of political power, it is no secret that the most violent, the most demanding, and the most petulant community has to be kept in good humour. When they get offended, and go on a murderous rampage after Hindus respond with Rangeela Rasool to books insulting Hindus, they need to be kept in good humour by the passage of a special law. When they want to establish a Caliphate in Turkey, they need to be pacified with unquestioning surrender by the Hindu community, willing to be beheaded with a smile on their face. Rahul Gandhi today did exactly what the political class has done for centuries – twist Sanatan Dharma to convince Hindus that their cowardice is considered a virtue and if they are TRUE Hindus, they would surrender, give in – and die with a smile on their face. It is this political project that leads to the demonisation of Hindutva, the vilification of Raudra Hanuman, the angst at Bhagwan Ram with a bow and arrow, the screaming, screeching uproar at the Ayodhya movement, the aversion to the Ram Temple, the anger at the demystification of history and the unadulterated hate against Hindu organizations – all of it remind Hindus that they are a warrior race, not a herd of sheep who should be led to their slaughter. Ahimsa, essentially, is doing everything to stop Himsa. Ahimsa is not the absence of Himsa, but the use of Sam, Dam, Danda, and Bhed to achieve peace. We could see Rahul Gandhi’s speech today in the parliament as just another Hinduphobic rant. Or we could see it for what it was – an attempt to keep the Hindu community ashamed and guilty. India has suffered the consequences of the apotheosis of one Gandhi – we certainly cannot afford another blunder.

It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. A Hindu perennially ashamed and guilty: How narrative after Ayodhya verdict is trying to achieve it It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don't despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. Nupur J Sharma 17 November 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] The Ayodhya verdict righted a historical wrong. While the Supreme Court treated it as purely a land dispute to ascertain whether Ram Janmabhoomi belonged to the Hindus or the land, where Babri Masjid once stood, (after demolishing a Hindu temple at the site) belonged to the Muslims. The court adjudged that the entire 67-acres belonged to the Hindus and the Muslims would get an alternate site in Ayodhya to build their mosque. One criticism of the judgement could possibly be that if the court did decide that the land indeed belongs to Hindus, giving Muslims a separate 5-acre plot was futile if the case was being treated purely as a land dispute. For example, if miscreants throw me out of my house and take possession of it, the court is surely not going to accord to miscreants a separate house to compensate for taking away their illegally possessed house and giving it back to its rightful owner. Hence, the verdict too certainly had an element of faith attached to it and no amount of denying that can possibly help. So far, the criticism of the verdict has also been the basis of the faith of the Muslim community even though, elements like Owaisi have tried to package it as legal arguments. Personally, I would not fault the Muslim community for feeling upset over the verdict. The issue was a charged one with deep religious, cultural, historic and civilisational underpinnings and it was expected that the community that lost would be upset over it. However, Ram Janmabhoomi has 5-century long struggle attached to it and since the Babri Masjid was built by invaders after tearing down and desecrating a Hindu temple, the civilisational scales are tipped vastly in favour of the Hindu community. While the Muslim community being upset is understandable, there are several other parallel narratives that are being pushed post the Ayodhya verdict which point towards a deeper issue not just with sections of the Muslim community but also the media, which is often considered the propaganda wing of the Muslim fundamentalist faction. Walking on egg-shells around the Muslim community post-Ayodhya and did it help? Even before the Ayodhya verdict was pronounced, there was a host of requests being made for calm to be maintained. While this sounds advice of maturity, the undercurrent was palpable and deeply disturbing. Mostly, due to the historicity of Ram Janmabhoomi, despite the valiant efforts by Left historians, it was almost considered a foregone conclusion that Hindus would get Ram Janmabhoomi back. The only doubt in the mind of the sceptics was perhaps whether the ‘secular’ establishment would play spoilsport and split the land between Hindus and Muslims and these sceptics mostly belonged to the Hindu community itself. For most belonging to the establishment, the sense of which way the wind was blowing was evident and thus, started the pontification. Hindus were asked to keep calm. Hindus were asked to not offend the Muslim community. Hindus were asked not to celebrate the culmination of a 5 century-old battle for a piece of land their faith was inextricably tied to. Hindus were asked to not consider this a victory. Hindus were asked to maintain ‘marayada’ while celebrating the return of their King, Marayada Purshottum Ram, essentially, Hindus were told that any celebration would mean a direct instigation of the Muslim community. And Hindus did oblige. There was hardly any celebration other than muted ‘Jai Shree Ram’ tweets. Hindus did not come out on the streets to celebrate. Hindus walked on egg-shells lest they offend the easily provocable Muslim community and let one of the most glorious victories slide with sombre maturity. Essentially, the assumption here was that Muslims would react in a manner that would be violent. While the assumption by the ‘secularists’ goes against the picture of victimhood they wish to paint of the Muslim community, the narrative was simple. The mighty Hindus must be magnanimous to the scared, demured Muslim community. Did it help? Not really. Hindus in general and Hindu leaders specifically have kept a mature stance on the issue. We had Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Baba Ramdev talk about how this is not an issue of a victory or a loss, but in fact, just closure to a chapter in history. Even VHP, interestingly, observed a mature silence on the issue. However, the Muslim leaders and sections of the Muslim population, in general, did not follow suit. We had Asaddudin Owaisi spew venom and reject the Supreme Court verdict. We had him take to Twitter and claim that he wants his masjid back. We had a group of Muslim women in Telangana hold a “prayer meeting” and should slogans like “Ram Mandir todenge”. While the women were booked, not one ‘liberal’ who had been pontificating to Hindus before the verdict, came forward to condemn such programs or even the utterings of Owaisi. Essentially, the pontification to the Hindus achieved the first step in a long project for the Muslims and the Liberals. ‘Liberal’ pontification: A project to induce ‘Survivor’s Guilt’ One has to wonder what did all the incessant and annoying pontification actually achieve. Was it merely a force of habit where they pretend to be the harbingers of some lofty, yet ultimately useless virtue? Was it because they just dislike Hindus and want to “civilise the unwashed masses”? Was it because they think Hindus don’t measure up to the elite values of being divorced from faith? Perhaps yes, for many. However, there is a completely different agenda at play here. Inducing ‘Survivor’s Guilt’. ‘Survivor’s Guilt’ is essentially guilt that consumes a person who survives a traumatic incident, when others don’t. It is often seen in survivors of plane crashes, for example. They wonder why they survived the crash while others didn’t. The guilt often consumes a person to a point where they feel mentally paralysed, incapable of living their life how they should. When Hindus are told that their victory, one they have fought tooth and nail for over a span of 500 years, is not something that they must celebrate, it is essentially a practice in inducing paralysing guilt. The Ayodhya struggle was a traumatic one for both sides, especially for Hindus. Hindus first lost their temple to invading, barbaric hoards. Then, Indian Muslims refused to recognise that Hindus had a rightful claim over what they lost. When Hindus struggled to get it back, they were called bigots, criminals. They were shot at, killed, maimed. They were branded as terrorists. A neighbouring Islamic country destroyed tens of temples after the Babri demolition. There were widespread riots where Hindus and Muslims both died. On the part of Muslims, they were confronted with a civilisational battle that their indoctrination had rendered them incapable of understanding or handling. By all standards, the Ayodhya struggle was a traumatic one for both Hindus and Muslims. Eventually, Hindus got their rightful claim while the court made the Muslims realise that their claim was unfounded from the beginning. Hindu claims survived. Muslim claims didn’t. What the liberals wanted with their elaborate charade is to make Hindus feel guilty. When a people can’t celebrate a victory that they fought for over the span of 500 years, you essentially tell them that they do not ‘deserve’ the victory. That their ‘victory’ was not rightful. There was no justice in their triumph. That while they got what they wanted, they should hang their heads in shame because the other side, the ‘rightful side’, lost. They ensure that Hindus feel guilt so paralysing, so self-deprecating, that they lose sight of how they reclaimed their civilisation. How reclamation of their civilisation was their right. They won. Hindus did not celebrate. Hindus stayed mute. Hindus tried not to offend the Muslims. Hindus tried to not even let themselves realise the enormity of the civilisational battle that they had just won. Sections of the Muslim community, the AIMPLB and Owaisi in particular, continued to spew venom. How Media Jihad-apologists helped It has long been established that the media is the propaganda arm of Jihad. That they are the spokesperson of the worst lot of the Muslim population that prefers to arm-twist the government and the majority population into giving them exactly what they want. They are the ideological backbone and the intellectual shield that the most violent section of the Muslim community depends on for nourishment. In the aftermath of the Ayodhya verdict, the conduct of the media and the Jihadi elements in the media was no different. The media launched a 4-point agenda: Guilt trip the Hindus for winning a 500-year long battle Paint Muslims as the victim – ‘Hindus took something away from the Muslims’. Subtly wonder why the Muslim community was not rioting on the roads, and if they are lucky, cajole the Muslim community to rum amock, causing riots, so they can demonise Hindus further and use the riots to beat Hindus into ideological submission. Exploit the Ayodhya win of the Hindus and the guilt they were working hard to invoke, to arm-twist Hindus into submitting to some unrelated demands of the Muslim community. To understand how the narrative was built, we analyse the writing of 4 de-facto Jihadi ideologues in the media fraternity. Rana Ayyub A night before the verdict was announced, Rana Ayyub, the foremost Jihad apologist in the media space, took to Twitter to launch her narrative early. On the day of the verdict and before the pronouncement, Rana then took too Twitter to compare Muslims to Jews. It would be tragic, if not so transparently hilarious. Invading tyrants destroyed a temple, raped and killed and converted Hindus, build a Masjid on the ruins of Hindus faith but Muslims are like Jews. The Babri Masjid, built by invading tyrants who raped, killed and converted Hindus and destroyed a temple to build it in the first place was a monument of faith for Muslims. Its destruction ‘othered Muslims’. However, Ram Janmabhoomi was not a matter of faith for Hindus. If it was, the Jihad apologists didn’t care. If Hindus get their rights back, if Hindus have their faith respected, if the Ayodhya verdict goes in the Hindus’ favour, the country, the entire country disappoints Muslims. That was a precursor to the narrative. Then came an article in Washington Post headlined “India’s Supreme Court endorses right-wing vision relegating Muslims to second-class citizens”. In the article, Rana Ayyub mentions that the lawyer chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’ was akin to Hindus gloating. The guilt-tripping starts early. A Hindu lawyer, fighting tooth and nail in the court of law to reclaim the Hindu faith, the Hindu civilisation, was hate. She then says, “Like many Indian Muslims back home, I’ve struggled to make sense of the kind of “justice” that is being celebrated, this closure and relief many speak of. Whose closure? As a child of the 1992 anti-Muslim riots that followed the demolition of the holy mosque, I was made to revisit the traumatic decade, when a wake of communalism changed the narrative on secularism in the world’s largest democracy”. The Babri Masjid was ‘a holy mosque’. Ram Janmabhoomi, where the Hindu faith resided much before the Babri Masjid even came up, is not ‘Holy’. It is not ‘sacred’. The Hindus are tyrants for taking away a Mosque that was built on the ruins of their faith. The rest of the article is an attempt to lie and paint Muslims as victims. She falsely claims that there were hundreds of rapes of Muslim women. She forgets the Hindu victims and essentially, paints Hindus as rioting fanatics who desecrated the faith of Muslims. She further said, “A resounding message has been sent to the more than 200 million Muslims in the country that they must bear every humiliation and injustice with the silence expected of an inferior citizenry.” She builds the base for any future arm-twisting – “You made us feel like second class citizens then, meet our demands now”. By this, Rana Ayyub had achieved the vital three steps in the project – guilt-tripping Hindus, painting Muslims as the victims, setting the stage for future arm-twisting. Then came the crucial final step – subtly wonder why the Muslim community was not rioting on the roads, and if they are lucky, cajole the Muslim community to rum amock, causing riots, so they can demonise Hindus further and use the riots to beat Hindus into ideological submission. She tweeted: She wonders why Muslims are silent. Why they are not on the streets. Rioting. So the violence can be used to guilt-trip Hindus further – “Look what you did”. The loop was complete. Barkha Dutt Barkha started with her guilt-tripping, just as the others, with guilt-tripping and cautioning Hindus to not be celebratory. Then came a masterful article where she achieved all four steps in one swift motion. Barkha wrote an article headlined “What India owes its Muslim citizens after the Ayodhya temple verdict”. Barkha writes: Though the response to the judgment has been muted thus far, it will take time to figure out whether this is due to fatigue, a generational shift or the asymmetry of power between Hindus and Muslims. Once again, the aftermath could be lethal. In fact, real closure will depend on how, going forward, India treats its more than 175 million Muslim citizens. Anything other than equitable justice will only leave deep scars and gaping wounds. Essentially, Barkha says the following in just 5 lines: Muslims have been ‘muted’ but there is a chance they will riot in the future Muslim are not rioting just as yet because they are weak, since Hindus are more in number and hence, the aggressors. Unless Hindus catapult to Muslim demands, however, unreasonable, they might start rioting. She further writes (emphasis mine): Proponents of the campaign argued that 16th-century Mughal invaders desecrated an already existing temple and built a mosque on its ruins . India’s Supreme Court has now said the specifics of this particular argument are hazy . Nevertheless, it has judged that the Hindu groups are better able to establish continuous worship over centuries at the site, where the remains of a structure that is “not Islamic” have been reported beneath the mosque . The decision will allow the BJP and Modi government to bolster its political fortunes further, with the construction of a grand Ram temple possibly just ahead of elections in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most politically significant state. In an attempt to guilt-trip, Barkha says that there is no proof that Muslim invaders desecrated a Hindu temple to build the mosque. Interestingly, she also mentions how the court held that a ‘non-Islamic’ structure did exist under the Mosque. The Non-Islamic structure could have been a pub or a shopping mall perhaps? Or perhaps the studio of Tiranga TV? Either way, this was an attempt to guilt-trip the Hindus rather effectively. The central argument here that Barkha tried to make was that the Hindus did not win because Ram Janmabhoomi is there civilisational right, but because their lawyers were better. She then writes: In this moment, ideologues should also show generosity and compassion to India’s Muslim citizens. On the eve of the Ayodhya verdict, the prime minister appealed for harmony and warned against seeing the outcome as a victory or defeat for either side. One way to nip any majoritarian gloating in the bud is for his party to recast its most contentious Hindutva policies. For starters, proposed new legislation on citizenship rights, which links citizenship to religion and enables only non-Muslim refugees or immigrants from neighbouring countries to become Indian citizens, must be scrapped or altered. It is patently discriminatory against Muslims. After establishing the guilt of Hindus two ways to Sunday and warning Hindus of possible riots if Hindus don’t concede to other demands by Muslims, Barkha goes on to list those demands, First demand – scrap Citizenship Amendment Bill that proposes to give citizenship to non-Muslim persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations. There are several points to be made here. Firstly, India is the natural home for Hindus and that cannot be denied. Secondly, it is the Muslims who are persecuting the non-Muslims in neighbouring Islamic countries and thus, it is only fair that those non-Muslims be given refuge. Thirdly, the Muslims who are being persecuted by fellow-Muslims, not because of their identity but in spite of it. The Muslims consider certain sections of Muslims inferior, Murtads, and hence, they are persecuted. This is the internal strife of the Muslim world and thus, India has no civilisational or moral responsibility to play the arbitrator of the Muslim Ummah. Since India has no legal obligation to take in refugees, the section of persecuted people it chooses to take in is her prerogative. It would be “Non-Muslim” is Indian Muslims were being discriminated against by CAB. They are not. Hence, Barkha’s demand, that she makes on behalf of the Muslim community, is nothing but pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood and Ummah. Next, Barkha demands, on behalf of the Ummah, that BJP must ensure that more Muslims contest from their ranks. Though there is no comparison between BJP and extremist political outfit AIMIM, one wonders why after every Hindu-Muslim riot or after every genocidal statement made by either of the Owaisi brothers, Barkha has never demanded that more Hindus be inducted into the party. That demand too would have been asinine since every political party has the right to establish who fights on their ticket. Another attempt by Barkha to arm-twist BJP into following the path that Congress did, during whose regime, Barkha could be an instrumental part of the Radiia Tapes. Further, she writes some nonsense about multi-faith prayers at Ram Janmabhoomi which is such a moronic suggestion that it should not even be dignified. Barkha, with her article, plays a dangerous game but sticks to the ‘liberal’ script – guilt-trip Hindus, threaten with Muslims rioting, arm-twist to meet unrelated demands of the Ummah. The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani Arfa Khanum Sherwani is such a rabid Islamist that ideally, her utterings should be ignored. However, those who write about the Media and the embedded Jihad apologists therein, would not be doing justice if they did not analyse how the Jihad-apologist-in-chief furthered the same narrative as Barkha Dutt, which is actually an indictment of Barkha Dutt and not Arfa herself. Arfa blatantly, more so than others, declared Muslims as the victims and Hindus as the aggressors. Muslims are the community that has been wronged. Hindus are the ones who have wronged Muslims – as clear a statement as could be. The guilt of Hindus is so evident in her statements, that how she wanted to guilt-trip the Hindus does not even need further examination. Then, Arfa went on to write an article headlined, “For A Young Girl Who Fled Home in December 1992, Ayodhya Verdict Brings No ‘Closure’”. Arfa writes (and this is the crux of her article apart from copious amounts of tear-jerking): The Muslim community has also largely been quiet and non-reactive. A few religious/social leaders maintain that they respect the Supreme Court’s verdict although they disagree with it. But should the lack of reaction from the Muslim community at large be seen as acceptance of the verdict? Has the court been successful in its ultimate objective of delivering a verdict not leading to disturbance of social peace? Or is this silence emanating from the fear Muslims at large have of a backlash against them from not just the majority community but from a system that has so openly worked against them and their interests since the Narendra Modi government first came to power in 2014? Has the humiliation and helplessness resulting from brazen anti-Muslim politics – including gau raksha and ‘love jihad’ – made them lose hope for justice and parity in their own country? The rues the “lack of reaction”. She essentially rues that Muslims, as they did in the past, have not spilt on to the streets to intimidate the ruling class with violence. She assumes that the Muslim community is scared simply because they are not out on the streets displaying their strength in numbers and their willingness to perpetrate violence. This sentiment of Arfa was not only limited to her article, but the out-of-the-closet Jihad apologist went on to say exactly the same on video too. What is to be noticed here is that she too, like Barkha, brings in unrelated issues that put the Muslim community in a tight spot. In her article, she mentions gau-raksha and love jihad. That love jihad is real has been proved by the innumerable victims who have come out and spoken about how they were duped to convert. That gau-raksha as a cause today exists simply because cattle-smugglers threaten the livelihoods of several Hindus (and Muslims in some cases) is missed. At the end of the day, Arfa wants the Ayodhya verdict to be used as a tool to not only guilt-trip Hindus but to ensure that the ensuing guilt stops Hindus from raising their voice when Muslims commit crimes that affect the Hindus’ livelihood and their faith directly. Saba Naqvi Since I have explained the modus-operandi in details while scrutinising the other Jihad-apologists in the media, with Saba, I will simply list out the points and leave it up to the reader to connect the dots. The poor victims and the mighty aggressors. Saba Naqvi in her article writes: It had always been a lose-lose situation for the minority community, damned if they win, damned if they don’t. It was the temple issue that most effectively created the template for casting Muslims as the “Other”, in this case for apparently denying the majority community their right to worship Lord Ram in the spot claimed as his birthplace. As Muslims are still the faces against which people are being mobilised on multiple fronts, fighting on about the mandir-masjid after the apex court verdict would be self-defeating. The way politics and debates are framed these days the Muslim community needs to be tactical about issues it allows itself to be dragged into. Besides, had the Muslim side won, what could they have done? They could not have rebuilt a mosque, but they could have claimed a constitutional victory and that would have counted. At the end of this long journey, there is also a recognition that the only battles the community needs to engage with are for jobs, education and health. But will they be allowed to do so? Is there any guarantee that more issues seeking to extract “historical revenge” will not be resurrected? Muslims are the faces against which people are being mobilised, Saba writes. She is essentially alluring to all other issues which her comrades and her want to paint as anti-Muslims, including CAB, NRC etc. In the process, she paints the Muslims as victims rather vociferously and might I add, naively. She says that whether the Muslims would have won or lost, conveniently, they would have been the victims. Further, she writes: Finally, the onus of making this a moment of national reconciliation rests not on the minority community but with the government and India’s pre-eminent political party. After alluding to “other issues”, Saba writes that the onus is on BJP to ensure “reconciliation”. Essentially saying that the Muslims have kept quiet and not taken to the streets, hence, now the BJP must compromise on other issues that the Muslim community (more so eminent apologists like Saba) view as contentious. The Guilty Hindu Perhaps the vilest, most degenerate emotion is the guilt of an innocent man. It is worse when the ones who have sinned hold the victim by the head, look into their eyes, and in all earnestness, with a firm mask hiding the face of malice, tell the victim that he ought to feel what the sinner must. It is the worst form of treachery since it exploits the innate goodness of the victim. Guilt is not the burden of the guilty. It weighs on the hearts of men and women who still have divine goodness in them. Whose sense of morality becomes their greatest folly. A morality that makes them so vulnerable, that even when have not sinned, they can be made to feel like sinners. It is important to realise that the Jihad apologists don’t despise Hindus per se. They simply want that the Hindu community never gets over its insurmountable capacity to absorb hate, humiliation, defeat, murder, rape, conversion and the desecration of their faith. For the capacity to absorb humiliation to continue, the Hindu must be made to carry the burden of undeserved guilt perennially. The guilt that the Jihad apologists wish to root in the Hindu exploits the innate goodness and principles of Sanatan, perhaps that is what makes it so vile. The Hindu mustn’t consider their own land as a natural home for Hindus – it is anti-Muslim. The Hindu must not value the land that has been nurtured by the blood of her brave – it is anti-Muslim. The Hindu must not speak up when they are converted forcefully – it is anti-Muslim. The Hindu must not detest the waves of violence that have been unleashed against it historically till the present day by fundamentalist Muslims – it is anti-Muslim. The Hindu must not value their faith that was historically desecrated by Muslim invaders – it is anti-Muslim. The Hindu must not be proud, must not be vocal, must not be celebratory, must forget history, must be guilt-ridden, must not fight for what is rightfully theirs, must not lift their heads, must, forever, keep their head down and take the injustice, the violence, all in the name of a syncretic culture. The guilt helps the Muslim community arm-twist a nation-state. the guilt, that is so insurmountable, that the Hindu is forced to pretend like the tyranny never existed. The Hindu must shut up. The Hindu must roll over and consider himself lucky, that he is only being used as a doormat and not being an example out of – like Kamlesh Tiwari. What irks them today, is that surely, but slowly, the Hindu is raising his head and shedding the baggage of forced guilt. The Hindu must be forced into submission again. The question remains – will the Hindu be manipulated yet again.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Why Section 195 of Draft Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita needs relook: A ‘religiously neutral provision’ that may end up criminalising criticism of Muslim separatism Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach - especially in a Bill that otherwise makes much-needed changes, protecting real victims. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added. Nupur J Sharma 12 August 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Muslims protesting against CAA in India (Image credit: Bloomberg) On the 11th of August, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced 3 new bills to revamp the criminal justice system of India. These bills Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill will replace the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act respectively. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita draft bill is meant to replace the current Indian Penal Code. Speaking on the three bills in the Lower House, Amit Shah said, “Under this law, we are repealing laws like Sedition.” “From 1860 to 2023, the country’s criminal justice system functioned as per the laws made by the British. With these three laws there will be a major change in the criminal justice system in the country,” he said. Essentially, the bill was presented as a progressive bill that strikes down colonial-era laws and gives far for freedom to a citizen, at least as far as his freedom of expression does, than the IPC does, however, as one says, the devil is always in the details. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita draft bill with 356 sections and several sub-sections and clauses is a vast bill that required a thorough reading to fully understand whether it is as progressive as was initially supposed. Like in any bill, there are sections that welcome additions. For example, the bill takes a leap towards dealing with the menace of Love Jihad by explicitly adding that establishing sexual relations under false pretences would be considered a crime. This means that the Islamists who pretend to be Hindus to trap Hindu girls, later forcing them to convert, would be a crime under the IPC – a historic step for Hindus. Further, there are laws about unlawful assembly that would make the involvement of elements like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the anti-CAA riots a criminal activity upfront. Another example of the positive changes brought about by this draft is sub-clause 2 of the very law I intend to criticise in this article. Section 195 (2) says, “ Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine “. This would mean that the Allahu Akbar chants and religious provocations during Hindu processions, even if passing through so-called Muslim areas, would be considered criminal activity. In fact, this provision would also explicitly consider it criminal when Maulanas spew seditious statements in Mosques during Friday prayers, inciting several attacks against Hindus by Islamist mobs. There are, indeed, several provisions that aim to fix the areas that colonial-era laws had not considered or the previous governments had no will to address. It is because of these positive provisions that I believe the intent of this draft is to ensure equality and security for all citizens, including the Hindus of this country. It is only because I believe the intent of the dispensation to take this bill in the right direction, do I now write this scathing indictment of the provision I believe is draconian and misplaced. Chapter XI of the draft bill deals with offences against public tranquillity. Clause 195 under this chapter essentially criminalises academic criticism and analysis of Muslim separatism explicitly, even though it does not mention Islam as a specific religion. For the purpose of this article, we will analyse each sub-section and clause of section 195. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (a) 195. (1) (a) says: Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise,— (a) makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. This law is rather simple. If anyone says, writes or illustrates that certain persons or a group of people hold no allegiance to the Indian Constitution or that they have a propensity to not uphold the sovereignty of India, they are liable to be thrown in jail for 3 years. The obvious defence of this section is that it does not mention any community or religious group specifically and therefore, it is a fair clause that every denomination can use to their safeguard the dignity of their community. However, laws are to be understood in societal contexts and realities. The power imbalance Let us take the example of gender-neutral laws. There have often been demands that rape laws must be made gender-neutral and one can, if one tries, see the merit in these arguments to the extent that men need to be safeguarded as well. However, it is imperative that we understand the power dynamics in society that make it important for laws that are focused specifically to protect women. While men do suffer the consequences of heinous crime, women are disproportionately affected by sexual crimes and that is a fact that can’t possibly be denied. When a section of the population is disproportionately affected by a specific nature of crime, laws must be made to specifically provide safeguards to that section. This is essentially the argument made in favour of laws that are specifically made to protect women against sexual exploitation. Now, while we hold that line of argument, let us consider two statements: Brahmins can’t be true to Baba Saheb Ambedkar’s constitution because it aims to annihilate caste. Brahminism is antithetical to equality, which is the cornerstone of the constitution Dr Ambedkar wrote. Muslims can’t submit to a secular constitution because Islam aims to create Dar-al-Islam. The concept of Ummah is antithetical to modern notions of nation-state, loyalty to whom our constitutions demand. It is the societal reality of today that the first statement sounds academic in nature, even ideal activism while the second sounds like ‘hate speech’ not just to average folks, but even the highest judiciary of the land – this is where my fear lies. If one analyses decades of judicial activism, one would find several statements that talk about a casteless society, brahmanism, caste atrocities etc. However, it is the same court that reads out the Quran even to pass a judgement where the basic rights of Muslim women are upheld – like in the Triple Talaq case. In fact, we had a sitting judge smile at the thought of a Brahmin Genocide while listening to a case about hate speech against Muslims. Such is the power imbalance against Hindus at the highest echelons of the Indian State. There is a reason why Hindus for a while got no law protecting their life and limb specifically against Jihadi violence despite several genocides leading up to the partition – the power imbalance is almost insurmountable. Let us take another example. While the framers of the constitution explicitly focussed on caste annihilation in the constitution and enshrined specific safeguards against the marginalised sections of the society with the specific aim of reforming the Hindu society, it was the Muslims who managed to preserve their personal laws on the basis of religion. From Mohammad Ismail to Mahboob Ali Beg, the argument made when UCC was being discussed in 1946 was that personal laws are a part of the religious beliefs of Muslims and therefore must not be touched. Ultimately, even though Dr Ambedkar was in favour of reform, the Muslim personal laws prevailed untouched. Historically, it was after Rangeela Rasool was printed and Muslims went on a rampage, was Article 295A passed by the British. It was not passed when the Muslims had published two books insulting Hindus, in whose response Rangeela Rasool was printed. Even after 295A was passed by the British to assuage the ever-hurt sentiments of Muslims, despite the fact that the insult first came from the Muslims against Hindus, the Muslims still went ahead and murdered Mahashay Rajpal. The power structure is certainly not equal and therefore, even if a law treats Hindus and Muslims as the “same”, the two religious denominations are not the same by any measure. The argument is that Hindus can use this law too in order to legally punish those who hurt the sentiments of Hindus, but is the system ripe for the usage of the law equally? Has it ever been? Was it not evident from the comments against Nupur Sharma by the Supreme Court itself? The two religious denominations are not the same. They certainly don’t behave the same in a societal context and therefore, a law that aims to protect religious sentiments equally of both communities will only benefit the most intolerant because hatred against the tolerant community has already been normalised to such an extent that it is not even considered hate speech anymore. Since no religion is mentioned, it would apply to all religions equally – the fallacies of that argument The assumption that because a specific religion is not mentioned, it would apply to all religions equally, stems from the misplaced notion that all religions are the same and all religious groups behave in the same manner – more dangerously, it assumes that all criticism is equally applicable to all religions. The ‘all religions are equal’ claim stems from notions of religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself. When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that can enable religions to co-exist without sectarian violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly proportion where cultural context is often lost. At the very outset, it suffices to say that Islam lays out a doctrine for the humiliation of Kafirs. Stemming from that reality is the fact that all religious sections do not behave in the same manner in a society, especially one like Bharat, with an ancient Hindu consciousness. When one talks about Islam, it is important to acknowledge certain realities: Islamic doctrine itself ordains the humiliation of Kafirs and the conversion of Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-Ul-Islam. This is not an imputation on every Muslim, however, reality of the doctrine cannot be glossed over to chase mythical dreams of harmony and brotherhood, especially in a nation that has been torn apart once based on the tenets of this very doctrine. Islamists have little to no regard for the law of the land. There is a law that, of course, criminalises murder, however, that does not stop the Islamist from picking up his knife and beheading Kanhaiya Lal. There exists a law which deems Kamlesh Tiwari as an offender who deserves to be in jail, however, the Islamist has little to no use of the law because, for him, his religious doctrine requires him to slay Tiwari and Kanhaiya Lal – and slay he did. No other community is as perpetually offended as the Muslim community – that inherent offence stems from the fact that their religious doctrine considers itself the last, final and only true word of God – in that scenario – any other assertion that goes against their religious tenet is one that offends them. There are limitless words, phrases, averments, assertions, suggestions and opinions that can offend them. Essentially, no law can limit their offence and therefore, their propensity to indulge in street violence when they do get offended – because the moment you X offends them and therefore, must be criminalised, they will start getting offended by Y – all the while – dispensing justice per their religious doctrine as they did in the case of Kanhaiya Lal. A nation that is not Islamic in nature must be turned into an Islamic land. Lastly, their religious doctrine avers them to place their faith in the Ummah and not nation states – any nation state which does not conform to the Ummah is one that is an enemy state. These are merely facts. These facts have long been established and repeated by several scholars over decades. Now, when we say that Section 195 (1)(a) is applicable to all religious denominations equally because it does not specifically mention a religious group, what we are essentially doing is being blind – wilfully – to these realities that stem from the Islamic doctrine. The law in this case criminalises two specific imputations: That a person or a group of people don’t bear allegiance to the Constitution of India because they belong to a certain religious group That a person or a group of people cannot uphold sovereignty or integrity of India because they belong to a certain religious group. Now, realistically, given Bharat’s history and its current realities, which community is most likely to not bear allegiance to the Constitution of India and/or not have the propensity to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of Bharat as a nation-state? For Hindus as a religious denomination, Bharat is a civilisational state that has the blood of their ancestors and the consciousness of their Gods and God Kings. It is the land they fought for and bled for. It is the land that they could preserve for themselves after the Islamic community tore their civilisation apart based on their religious tenets – based on the two-nation theory where they claimed that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in the same nation because the Muslims are a nation unto themselves. While even the most “extreme” Hindu’s crime is saying that this is a Hindu land – taking ownership of this civilisation and vowing to preserve it – the most extreme Muslim has a completely opposite view. He believes that India is Dar-ul-Harb which must be converted to Dar-Ul-Islam. When such notions are harboured, there is obviously no allegiance to the Constitution and it is precisely the sovereignty and integrity of the nation that they wish to hurt – as it was during the brutal partition of the nation. 195 (1) (a) would essentially outlaw and criminalise a discussion on these very basic tenets based on which India has not only been torn apart but has been made to bleed for centuries. Academic criticism and evaluation of Islam and its tenets directly impact the course a civilisation would take – especially one with a substantial Islamic population. Criminalising the analysis of certain established facts that we have seen play out practically in front of our eyes not even 100 years ago is harakiri of the worst kind. If this draft does become a law, essentially, for a Muslim to say that he believes in the supremacy of the Quran over the Constitution would be his religious right, because that is precisely what his religious doctrine preaches. He can defend that belief based on the religious freedom guaranteed to him by the Constitution of India (ironically). However, if someone was to point out that he believes in the Quran over the Constitution of India because he follows Islam, that person would be liable to be thrown in jail for 3 years (along with a fine). And this is certainly not a figment of my imagination. Samajwadi Party leader ST Hasan had only recently said that the government can make laws but Muslims will only follow Sharia. TMC Minister Siddiquilla had said that the Quran will always prevail over the Constitution and this sentiment was also expressed by a Bollywood actor. Even the state of Kerala was all set to declare the supremacy of Sharia over the Constitution in the court of law and vouch for its legal and constitutional validity. The sentiment expressed by these leaders, who swear by the Constitution when they are elected no less, are not surprising – thousands of Muslims harbour the same sentiment. Again, this is not my assertion. Here is what Dr BR Ambedkar had said in his book Pakistan or Partition of India: “Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity,” BR Ambedkar wrote in ‘ Pakistan or Partition of India ’ . “ The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.” On the question of Muslim loyalty to his country vis-a-vis his loyalty to Islam, Ambedkar wrote: “Among the tenets, one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land … The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to His Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…” Ambedkar opined that the teaching of the Holy Quran rendered the existence of a stable government almost impossible. However, he was more alarmed by the Muslim tenets that prescribed when a country is a motherland to the Muslims and when it is not. “ According to Muslim Canon Law, the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’ Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam, it becomes Dar-ul-Harb ,” he said. “To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if a proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit…In the midst of the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race, ” BR Ambedkar had said . If the current draft were to be passed as a law, it is a given that Dr BR Ambedkar, had he written this book today, would have been jailed for 3 years (with fine). Not just Ambedkar, here is what Sita Ram Goel wrote in his book ‘Muslim Separatism’: “If the Hindus sang Vande Mãtaram in a public meeting, it was a ‘conspiracy’ to convert Muslims into kãfirs. If the Hindus blew a conch, or broke a coconut, or garlanded the portrait of a revered patriot, it was an attempt to ‘force’ Muslims into ‘idolatry’. If the Hindus spoke in any of their native languages, it was an ‘affront’ to the culture of Islam. If the Hindus took pride in their pre-Islamic heroes, it was a ‘devaluation’ of Islamic history. And so on, there were many more objections, major and minor, to every national self-expression. In short, it was a demand that Hindus should cease to be Hindus and become instead a faceless conglomeration of rootless individuals.” He continued, “On the other hand, the ‘minority community’ was not prepared to make the slightest concession in what they regarded as their religious and cultural rights. If the Hindus requested that cow-killing should stop, it was a demand for renouncing an ‘established Islamic practice’. If the Hindus objected to an open sale of beef in the bazars, it was an ‘encroachment’ on the ‘civil rights’ of the Muslims. If the Hindus demanded that cows meant for ritual slaughter should not be decorated and marched through Hindu localities, it was ‘trampling upon time-honoured Islamic traditions’. If the Hindus appealed that Hindu religious processions passing through a public thoroughfare should not be obstructed, it was an attempt to ‘disturb the peace of Muslim prayers’. If the Hindus wanted their native languages to attain an equal status with Urdu in the courts and the administration, it was an ‘assault on Muslim culture’. If the Hindus taught to their children the true history of Muslim tyrants, it was a ‘hate campaign against Islamic heroes’. And the ‘minority community’ was always ready to ‘defend’ its ‘religion and culture’ by taking recourse to street riots “. If Sita Ram Goel lived today and wrote this book after this draft had become a law, he would too, be jailed for 3 years (with fine). Not just them – you would potentially be in jail too simply for reproducing what they wrote and saying that you believe they were right. In essence, 195 (1) (a) criminalises the academic criticism and analysis of Muslim separatism and the religious tenets that convince them to hold allegiance to the Islamic Ummah over the concept of the nation-state. One has to wonder how we can possibly celebrate Partition Horror Remembrance Day when the conversation around the very root of that partition is criminalised. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) says, ….. “asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class of persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied, or deprived of their rights as citizens of India shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both “. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (b) seems to be a rather dangerous provision if one truly understands what it might be suggesting. Essentially, it says that one cannot ask for the suspension of rights of any group of people for being members of a religious, racial, language or regional group. What does this mean, essentially and how can it potentially impact an average citizen’s freedom of speech and expression? Let us take the example of 1990s Kashmir. Islamic brutes were committing genocide against Kashmiri Hindus. If this provision was a law at that time, and if a citizen said that “there must be a curfew imposed in Kashmir because Muslims are committing a genocide against Hindus”, or that “There is a genocide against Hindus because of Islamic supremacy and they must be thrown in jail for it”, one would be imprisoned for three years – this, because you are calling for the suspension of legal or constitutional rights of a group of people while identifying them on the basis of not only their religion but also their region. In the current context, Khalistanis demanding a separate state comes under waging a war against the nation and would be criminal. However, if a citizen points out that Khalistanis are separatists demanding a separate nation on the basis of their religion, and therefore, they should be thrown out of the country”, it could be potentially argued that the individual has demanded the suspension of the legal and constitutional rights of a group of people based on their religion, as therefore, must be thrown in jail for 3 years. As far as the Nuh violence is concerned, if one says that internet services must be suspended and a curfew must be imposed in Nuh after the recent violence, even without naming the religion of the aggressors, it could be argued that one is demanding the suspension of legal rights of a regional group and therefore, the individual must be thrown in jail. While these scenarios may seem like exaggerations, vague, unthoughtful laws do have an exaggerated effect and unfortunately, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d) would only end up favouring those who wish to hurt the sovereignty of India, giving them undue concessions, and penalise those law-abiding individuals who want the integrity of Bharat held sacrosanctly. Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (c) (d) Section 195, sub-section 1, clause (c) (d) says: “(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons; or (d) makes or publishes false or misleading information jeopardising the sovereignty unity and integrity or security of India, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both “. These two clauses are not very different from what was already included in the IPC. Clause (c), of course, one can argue that it gives some protection to Hindus, for example, when bile is spewed against them by Dravidian supremacists, however, again, it is the power imbalance that would make it a potent tool in their hands. One would imagine that if the law has to be liberalised from the legacy of the British, this would be tweaked, however, there is nothing contained in these two clauses that changes the status quo. Conclusion The Indian State has historically given concessions to the Muslim community simply to ensure that their forever-hurt sentiments remain assuaged. They have the right to be hurt – anyone does – but not the right to be riotous – and they are going to be riotous if you continue to legitimise their perennial hurt. The concession accorded makes them believe that their hurt is justified to the extent of giving calls to behead. Now once that concession is extended, their insatiable appetite will raise its ugly head. Once you accept their murderous sentiments, they will claim that your places of worship, your mandirs, are an affront to the Islamic faith. Once you concede that, they will say that you cannot even pray in your home because according to the Islamic community, there is no god but Allah and therefore, the fact that you believe in another god and pray to him is hurting their religious sentiments. The slide would end with them demanding your head on a pike because the very existence of Kafirs offends them. We must remember that the very basis of the partition was their demand for a ‘land of the pure” untarnished by the existence of Kafirs. When Gandhi allowed the Islamic community to run riots and murder Hindus, it validated their two-nation theory, enough for them to demand the dismemberment of India. When concessions were made to them about the Khilafat movement, terming it a nationalist movement instead of an Islamic one (that held allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate), MK Gandhi emboldened them to set their barbarity in motion and massacre Hindus in accordance with the Ummah they were fighting for. Bharat should not be giving yet another concession to the riotous Islamists by potentially criminalising even conversation around what led to the partition and the tenets that inspire thousands of Islamists to take to the streets – tenets that form the foundational existence of terror groups like PFI – tenets that aim to turn Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. Yes. These provisions can be used by both Hindus and Muslims but the societal realities are different from what we want them to be. Laws can also not be looked at from a partisan lens. Democracy is a revolving door and while you may believe that vague laws will be used to safeguard you when an ideologically aligned government is in power, vague laws are equally prone and more likely to be used against you by a state, regardless of govt in power, that is historically adept at taking a knee to violent, intolerant minorities who exert street power with impunity – it is for that reason that exceptions and safeguards for specific communities based on historical realities is necessary. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It would be a great injustice to Bharat if the very doctrine that stabbed her and made her bleed would be beyond analysis and reproach. One can only hope that the parliamentary debates on the IPC draft address these concerns and necessary caveats and exceptions are added.

Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Neo-Atheists, Atheists, militant Atheism and everything in between: Caged by Abrahamic Monotheism Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Nupur J Sharma 7 September 2020 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Before we proceed further, there are two things that ought to be stated outright. Firstly, the purpose of this article is not to encourage desecration of the Quran or any other Islamic scriptures or doctrine. The sole purpose is to provide an understanding of the core matter at hand, in light of the online battle between ex-Muslims and Hindus. And secondly, most obviously, the author does not believe that all Muslims are Jihadis or terrorists. Now that we are done with formalities, let us jump straight to the matter. Steven Weinberg, the great American physicist and a Nobel laureate, once remarked, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil, but for good people to do evil – that takes religion” and since then, this quote has almost been weaponised by Atheists around the world to condemn religion as an outdated concept that is using violence to maintain its relevance in a world that has outgrown the need or the desire for its tenets. The New Atheism movement started in the mid-2000s with the ‘four horsemen for Atheism’ – Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris – gaining immense popularity. The core tenet of New Atheism is that religion was created in an attempt to explain how the world works at a time when science had hardly made the leaps that it has today. Thus, at a time when science has progressed, religion’s validity has expired, so to speak. There are several other claims that New Atheists make which we will examine in the course of this article, however, the central theme remains constant – Religion, any religion, has outlived its validity. The New Atheism movement, however, ushered in another remarkable trend. It essentially espoused that being an Atheist was not sufficient. Atheists must ‘scientifically’ counter the theists and expose their dogmatic ways wherever they are found. What started off as an attempt to infuse scientific discourse and composed debate on the question of Religion, soon became a free-for-all with the influx of several ex-Muslims, like Armin Navabi, Harris Sultan and others, who simply assumed that the function of Atheism was ‘desecration’ without the consideration that criticism for every religion would have to differ based on the genesis, nature and context of that specific religion itself. Armin Navabi, Iranian Ex-Muslim who is now an Atheist first tore up and spat on the Quran. Following the support he got from Hindus, he proceeded to willfully desecrate the Hindu faith. The underlying reason for doing this, per Armin, was that all faiths should be desecrated equally, however, that is not where this saga began. It has already been established that the saga of desecrating the Hindu faith started with another ex-Muslim, Abdullah Sameer, shielding the Muslim community after the Sweden and Norway riots, getting called out by Robert Spencer and then, proceeding to draw a false equivalence between Hindus (who were calling him out online) and Muslims (who were burning the world). Soon, after the spat between Robert Spencer and Abdullah Sameer, Sameer started posting offensive images of Hindu Goddess Kali. Along with him, several other ex-Muslims like Harris Sultan and Armin Navabi started talking about how Hindus are just as bad as Muslims because they were calling them out on Twitter. On the 3rd of September, Armin took things a step further and shared the same image of Maa Kali. Only a couple of hours before posting this distorted picture which showed Goddess Kali in a sexual epithet, Armin was retweeting and talking about the #DesecrateTheQuran hashtag. Given how this spat started, one can easily assume that this entire episode was orchestrated to falsely equate Hindus and Muslims post the Sweden and Norway riots by the Muslims. However, for the purpose of this article, I will not be delving into that aspect. What needs to be analysed, however, is the surmise that gives rise to the notion that desecration of all faiths, in equal measure, is a desirable outcome of Atheism. It is in this spirit, that Harris Sultan, while speaking to ‘Hindu Atheist’ Kushal Mehra question OpIndia for covering Armin’s desecration of the Quran but being silent or even outraged, by his desecration of the Hindu faith. At the heart of it, is the supposition that all religions are equal and thus, all religions should be desecrated equally and it is this ill-informed position that needs to be challenged. Dissecting the ‘All religions are equal’ claim The notion does not really stem from Atheism itself but the notions of religious pluralism that assumes that not only do all religions claim that their truth is the ‘only truth’ that exists, but that all religions are based on the principles of Universal Truths and thus, these are the two tenets that need to be dealt with if religions are to co-exist peacefully. Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been taught since before the advent of religion itself. When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that can enable religions co-existing without sectarian violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly proportion where cultural context is often lost. For the purpose of this article, we will focus on Islam, Christianity and Hinduism since the question we eventually want to answer is- why is it permissible to desecrate Islam and not desecrate Hinduism? At the very outset, it suffices to say that no other religion in the world, at this point of time in history, lays out a doctrine for the torture, subjugation, conversion and humiliation of all the people who refuse to believe in their faith, other than Islam. This question of whether all religions are equal and whether Islam is inherently a religion of peace was discussed at length in an interview with Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer. He said in the interview that Islam as a religion indoctrinates its adherents to slay the Kafirs where they see them. They lay out the doctrine for religious warfare and strict rules as to what is to be done with the ‘spoils of war’. No other religion in the world has left behind a trail of mangled bodies, blood and gore in its wake as much as Islam and what is worse is that this carnage was sanctified in their religion, in fact, it is one of the necessities of their religion. Moral relativists and apologists of Islam often say that Islam is a religion of peace and it is its adherents who have distorted the peaceful version of Islam. They also say that the Quran is a peaceful text that essentially takes people closer to universal truths, just as other religions do, but it is the Hadith that twists the meaning of the Quran and ebbs people to commit violence in its name. None of these claims hold scrutiny, according to Spencer, since there exists no version of Islam that does not lay out a doctrine for the subjugation of Kafirs. In the interview, Spencer quoted verses of the Quran that themselves asked Muslims to slay the Kafirs and strike their neck. As Mr Spencer talks about the verses of the Quran that ordain its followers to slay Kafirs and Polytheists, one has to wonder how can a religion that is at odds with Polytheism be equal and aspires for the same goals as that of a Polytheistic religion? When Islam is at odds with Polytheism and the religious texts explicitly mention the subjugation of any Polytheist faith, how accurate is it to say that all religions are exactly the same since neither Christianity (which is also an Abrahamic religion) or Hinduism (which is a polytheistic religion) say anything that remotely resembles Islam. We can further classify this argument between Abrahamic faiths and Polytheistic faiths. In the conversation with Robert Spencer, it was clear why Islam took over 500 years to find footing in India and countries like Europe fell to the onslaught of Islam far quicker than India. The Quran presents itself as completion and correction of Christianity, said Spencer, which also gives us a window into just how vast the difference between the Hindu faith and Islam/Christianity really is. Hence, to essentially say that all religions are equal and aspire towards the same universal truths is a fallacious statement that is made by the people who either harbour malice, or ignorance. What the desecration of the image of Maa Kali meant for Hindus A familiar grouse that was expressed by the Neo-Atheists is why Hindus were celebrating the desecration of the Quran while they felt outraged when Armin Navabi desecrated the Hindu faith by sexualising Maa Kali. The underlying issue with this question that seems to baffle the Ex-Muslim Atheists is that they, almost militantly, follow the tenet that all religions are the same, a question, that we have debunked earlier in this article. When we have concluded, with adequate proof, that all religions are indeed not the same, one has to then understand the cultural context to truly understand why Hindus were celebratory, or even supportive, when ex-Muslim Atheists desecrated Islam and went after the same Atheists when they sexualised Kali. From what I understand, the backlash against Armin Navabi first started with him sharing the sexualised images of Maa Kali and was exacerbated with his follow-up tweet that essentially told Hindus to put Maa Kali in a Burkha if her sexualisation was offending them. What Armin did was to reduce the divine, with no provocation whatsoever, to a basal, human upheaval of hormones. To ask Hindus whether they would want to masturbate to a deity they consider their mother or even say that he “simps for Kali” which essentially means that he would put the deity on a pedestal to get sexual favours in return. This tirade did not come from a place of understanding but from a place of militancy of thought that had no cultural context whatsoever. When they ask “how is the desecration of the Quran different from the desecration of Maa Kali”, the simple fact remains that the ex-Muslims grew up in a household that deeply believed in the tenets of Islam, as per their own confessions. Their draw towards Atheism or even anti-theism comes from being told that if they do not follow exactly what the Quran says, they will go to hell. Or that apostates deserve death and if they do not follow the tenets of the Quran, they too, like apostates would deserve death. From being told that women don’t deserve respect or can even be beaten up because the religion accords a sub-human position to women. It is a faith that is largely considered the root of violence and militancy across the world, a faith that has claimed countless lives in order to stay relevant in the modern age. Hence, since their anti-theism or atheism comes from their experience of religion growing up in a household that followed Islam, they understand what they are desecrating, to begin with. They know, that when they tear the Islamic scripture, what is the extent of the ideology and what those pages say, in very specific terms. However, for most monotheists, barring a few who can be debated on their ideas of universal truths and not just anti-theism, the idea of Hinduism is too abstract to even understand what the religion’s basic tenets are. This was, in fact, admitted by Navabi himself in a podcast he did a year ago. How then is it acceptable to critique a religion one doesn’t understand simply because it is a religion and the anti-theist believes in the desecration of all religions, even though they are by no way equal. Further, what the western anti-theists and atheists, a significant chunk of them being ex-Muslims, don’t understand is that there is a cultural context to the outrage of Hindus. For thousands of years, Hindus have been subjugated by the Islamist invaders who have raped Hindu women, beheaded our kings, murdered our children all for the ultimate goal of the establishment of the Caliphate. There are countless tales of how the Islamic invaders murdered Hindus and kept their wives, mothers and daughters as slaves – the spoils of war. The barbarity was so perverse, that Hindu women often chose to jump into the fire and give up their lives after Hindus were defeated in war, lest they were taken slaves by Islamic invaders. You might wonder why they didn’t simply slit their wrists instead of stepping into the burning fire – well – they did not want their corpse to be desecrated by the followers of Islam who had laid siege on their land. The brutality is not just limited to Islamic invaders. In the modern political landscape of India, Hindus were humiliated during the partition as well. One recalls how the Khilafat movement claimed the lives of countless Hindus during the Moplah massacres by Islamists and even the Direct Action Day, spearheaded by Jinnah. After the countless deaths of Hindus, our own, MK Gandhi, asked Hindus to simply lay down their lives if the Islamists chose to claim it. During partition, Hindus were mutilated and their women raped. At the altar of ‘secularism’, which the Atheists love to espouse, India decided to not conduct a full exchange of population, a suggestion that was made by various luminaries at the time including Dr B.R. Ambedkar, and thus, began another cycle of subjugation in modern India. This year itself, we saw riots by sections of the Muslim community and aided by the Left against the Hindus. The saga of brutality continues to this day not just in India, but also, against the minority Hindus of Pakistan and when India decided that the minority Hindus could take refuge in India, their natural home post-partition, the Islamists ran riots yet again. They stabbed a Hindu over 50 times simply because he was Hindu and chopped off the arms and legs of another before burning him alive. Since the Atheists and anti-theists love to ally with the Left, the obvious question that will be thrown after reading this article is – what about the Muslims who died? Let me preempt that question and say that in every war, both sides suffer losses, but war is defined by those who start the war, and Hindus, have never started one. With centuries of subjugation behind them, when Armin says that Hindus must put their Goddess in a Hijab if they are offended by the cheap sexualisation, he triggers an all-too-familiar sentiment – convert or die, worse, be raped. For centuries, whether they were Islamic invaders, or the Muslims post-partition of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the domestic Muslims who still employ this tactic or even the Muslims of Pakistan who till date subjugate Hindus, this trope has been used to humiliate Hindu women and their faith. For centuries, these were the options given to Hindu women by Islamist barbarians – wear a Burkha, convert to Islam or be raped or killed. This is exactly the sentiment that was invoked by Armin – He essentially said that he will reduce our Goddess to an object of cheap titillation, a disrobed woman, humiliated because he can. And if Hindus did not want him to cheapen their mother, they should make her wear a Hijab. While it is unclear that this was the intent or not, however, it is clear that internalised misogyny, Hinduphobia, hate for Idolatory and the unbridled urge for the subjugation of Kafirs is so strong, that even after leaving the faith, the barbarism towards polytheists remains. Hindus saw what Armin did as not just the humiliation of their deity, but also Iconoclasm that the community is far too familiar with. For the Hindu, there is absolutely no difference between their Idols being desecrated by the Islamic hoards and being buried in the steps of a mosque, their Ram Temple being demolished by invaders to build a Mosque and then deny them their rights and what Armin did. Essentially, it was an outsider, an Islamist, perhaps, who desecrated their faith and presented the remains as an offering at the foot of Abrahamism. One simple account of the hatred Muslims had for idolators comes from a poetic account of what Ahmad Shah did at Sidhpur, available in Mirat-i-Sikandari, the history of Gujarat, written by Sikandar ibn-i-Muhammad alias Manjhu ibn-i-Akbar in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. He marched on Saiyidpur,— writes the historian, on Jamad-ul-Awwal in AH 818 (July/August, AD 1415) in order to destroy the temples which housed idols of gold and silver. As quoted by Sita Ram Goel in his book, ‘Hindu Temples’, the poetic account is as below: He marched under divine inspiration, For the destruction of temples at Saiyidpur, Which was a home of the infidels,And the native place of accursed fire-worshippers.— There they dwelt, day and night, The thread-wearing idolaters.— It had always remained a place for idols and idol-worshippers,It had received no injury whatsoever from any quarter. It was a populous place, well-known in the world,This native place of the accursed infidels. Its foundations were laid firmly in stone, It was decorated with designs as if drawn from high heaven. It had doors made of sandal and ud.— It was studded with rings of gold, Its floors were laid with marble, Which shone like mirrors. Ud was burnt in it like fuel, Candles of camphor in large numbers were lighted in it. It had arches in every comer, And every arch had golden chandeliers hanging in it. There were idols of silver set up inside, Which put to shame the idols of China and Khotan. Such was this famous ancient temple, It was famous all over the world. By the effort of Ahmad, it was freed from the idols, The hearts of idol-worshippers were shattered with grief.He got mosques constructed, and mimbars placed in them, From where the Law of Muhammad came into force. In place of idols, idol-makers and idol-worshippers, Imams and callers to prayers and khatibs were appointed. Ahmads good grace rendered such help, That an idol-house became an abode of Allah. When the Sultan was free from Saiyidpur, he marched on Dhar in AH 819 (AD 1416-17) . One has to understand that for a Hindu, what Islamic invaders did to their temples and their idols is no different from what Armin Navani or any of the other ex-Muslim Atheists did to the image of Maa Kali. In both cases, the iconoclasm was exactly the same. In both cases, the followers of Abrahamic religion (yes, Atheist is also an Abrahamic, Monotheistic religion, which I will explain later in the article), desecrated the idol that they sacred. An idol and a faith that did absolutely nothing to deserve the kind of humiliation that it received except the fact that it chose to exist and fought, fiercely, the attempts to convert. The urge to desecrate Hindu idols comes from the basic contradiction between Hinduism and other monotheistic religions. The icons of Hinduism are expressionist while the monotheistic religions are mostly suppressionist. While Islam and Christianity are political ideologies, Hinduism is that which depends on its adherent’s experience and spirituality. While all you need to understand and even criticise Islam and Christianity is a study of their text, what you need to criticise Hinduism is experiencing and ultimately, working up to understanding its scriptures. While Christianity and Islam focus on a binary value system, Hinduism has multitudes of value systems that can even be at odds with each other. That Islam and Christianity both function on the basic premise that any human emotion is to be suppressed, Hinduism believes that it is to be celebrated and expressed, and it is this expressionism and the lack of binary value systems that Abrahamics find so difficult to rationalise. The binary model simply does not work with Hinduism and thus, the frustrations of a suppressive culture is often expressed by desecrating symbols of an expressionist, spiritual religion. Essentially, when Hindus say that Abrahamics do not understand Hinduism enough to criticise it, they mean that until they have gone through the experience of being Hindu, there is no text that they can read and claim proficiency in the religion, unlike Islam and Christianity. To top it all, other than the painful ignorance of Hinduism itself, the Atheists and anti-theists who have denounced Islam do not understand the cultural context of the Hindu communities struggle with Iconoclasm and thus, have not the faintest idea of the scars that have been inflicted time and again. For a Hindu, an Atheist is only deepening the scars left by the religion they claim to have denounced. For a Hindu, what the Atheist does is no different from what the adherents of Islam did to his idols and temples. And this cultural context cannot be ignored simply by repeating the “all religions are equal” trope, because they are certainly not. Why Hindus endorse desecration of Islam but not of Hinduism 20-year-old Yazidi girl Israa, who had been rescued from ISIS, burnt her hijab as she was surrounded by the Kurdish forces in 2019. The image, that powerful image, became one of the symbols of resistance against the Islamic forces. In her interview , she had said that she felt suffocated the first time she was asked to wear it and she wished she could burn the ISIS terrorists just like she burnt her hijab. Why did Israa feel suffocated with the Hijab and why was burning that Hijab such a powerful sentiment for her? For that matter, why is burning the image of Adolf Hitler such a powerful image for Jews? Why does a Yazidi celebrate when symbols of her oppression are destroyed? Because the hijab symbolises and is a manifestation of her oppression. Her scars. It symbolises the very people who took away her dignity, her faith, her family, her community, her temple, her everything. It is a symbol of those who pushed her and her family to darkness. It is a symbol of those who she wishes to destroy, not because she hates Muslims, but because the staunchest followers of Islam destroyed her life and desecrated on everything she and her ancestors held dear. Given the history of Hindus and their subjugation by Islamists, the sentiment mirrors that of Yazidis. When symbols of oppression are destroyed, Hindus are bound to support that as an act of defiance. It becomes even more pronounced when that destruction of oppressive symbols comes from those who claim to have left the faith of Islam. It is essentially seen as a validation of vindication of their pain. The reason why Armin got support and coverage when he desecrated the Quran is for the very reason that a Yazidi woman would burn her Hijab or be jubilant when someone else does. It was a destruction of the symbol of centuries of oppression. It was an act of defiance, the same defiance felt by Hindus. It validated the angst felt by Hindus. Now, imagine claiming that the destruction of the Hijab by a Yazidi is the same as the destruction of the symbols of Yazidism. While Islamists consider Yazidis as devil worshippers, would it be fair to assume if a Yazidi is happy about the destruction of the Quran or even that of the Hijab, she has to mandatorily be accepting of the destruction of her faith when has done nothing to receive that ire? This analogy is exactly what is needed to understand why Hindus supported the desecration of the Quran by Armin and not the desecration of Maa Kali. Hindus saw their vindication in an ex-Muslim recognising that Islam is a religion that has the potential to subjugate non-believers because that premise has been responsible for their own humiliation for centuries. On top of that, it helped them reinforce that what the Left has been telling them to almost gaslight them, about Islam being a religion of peace is not true – and this came not just from Hindus, who were the victims, but also people who used to be Muslims and have since left the faith. Then came the inexplicable desecration of Maa Kali and it jolted Hindus from their stupor. They wondered why an Atheist ex-Muslim would desecrate their faith when they had done nothing to deserve that ire. Armin tore the Quran because his experiences taught him that he did not want to endorse the ideology in the Book. What was his experience with Hinduism that drove him to desecrate Hinduism? Nothing except the notion that all religions are equal. Hindus would endorse the desecration of the faith that subjugated them and reject the desecration of their own faith that has been subjugated by the oppressor. Interestingly, Atheists seem to not have the bandwidth to grasp the fact that by desecrating Hinduism, they have only cut the branch that they were sitting on. Their aim in desecrating Islam was that its tenets are inconsistent with the modern age values that the world espouses. However, one of the tenets is to slay polytheistic religions and as a result of that, idols are desecrated. Essentially, the Atheists ex-Muslims seem to have done exactly what their erstwhile religion ordained them to do, it was only cloaked with Atheism and not Islamism. The ire of Hindus was expected, and necessary because for far too long, their faith has been desecrated for no fault of theirs, simply because the Abrahamics cannot accept polytheistic faiths. Saying ‘enough is enough’ is important. The shaming of Hindus when they voiced their disgust We have already established why Hindus were disgusted and outraged at the conduct of Atheists against Hinduism and the depiction of Maa Kali, however, what was more unpalatable is the response of the Atheists, ex-Muslims and Hindus to that outage. Outright, Hindus were labelled “just as bad as Jihadis” for protesting against the blatant disrespect for their faith, for no good reason. What is essentially wrong with this assertion is that first, the ex-Muslim atheists and Liberal Hindus were trying, rather hard, to draw a false equivalence between Hindus and Muslims. That is almost the same as drawing an equivalence between Jews and Nazis when a Jew criticises the desecration of its faith by ex-Nazis. Or saying that a Yazidi is “as bad” as an ISIS terrorist because they differentiate between the burning of the Hijab and the ruination of her faith by the very people who enslaved her. What the Atheists and Liberal Hindus essentially wanted was to submit to the whims of those who clearly have no idea of the cultural context of Hindus or worse, know and don’t care. Personally, I believe it is the second because I have seen several videos where these ex-Muslims discuss Hinduism and I find it hard to believe that they would have no idea of the cultural context. Essentially, the Atheists ex-Muslims and Liberal Hindus wanted Hindus to submit to the desecration of their faith, quietly, demurely, or they threatened to label them just as bad the very people who raped, subjugated, murdered and forcefully converted them to Islam. The manipulation in this tactic is staggering. Essentially, this is akin to telling a victim that she must not voice her opposition to what the perpetrator did against her or she will become just as bad as the perpetrator himself and because the victim harbours such visceral hate for everything that her perpetrator stands for, she would somehow be brainwashed and gaslighted into silence. The debauchery of this argument was further exposed when some of the Hindus started telling their fellow Hindus that Hinduism is a tolerant religion and hence, any and all desecration must not be responded to aggressively. What they wanted to tell Hindus is that they should accept the desecration of their faith to display how tolerant they and that if they don’t, even their words of protest would be right compared to those who were murdering and burning down entire cities because they were offended. Perhaps the overtly erudite Ex-Muslims and Hindu Atheists and liberal Hindus need to pay attention and read Karl Popper. He says: “ Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant “. Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is an apt description of what Abrahamics and Liberal Hindus want pious Hindus to follow. Essentially, these elements want Hindus to be tolerant to a level where the intolerant reign over the tolerant and the tolerant espoused by Hindus dies along with them. Certainly, one can see how that is a principle that has never been one that can be followed without the complete annihilation of the community that wishes to be tolerant to the level of their own destruction. It is essential to understand here that Islam took over 500 years to find footing in India because of the deep faith that Hindus held. Despite the barbarity heaped upon them, they refused to submit to the rule of Islam and held on to their faith despite all odds. When the Liberal Hindu and ex-Muslim Atheists want Hindus to inexplicably let go of that faith in the name of tolerance, what they do is create a situation where they leave the faith open to the onslaught of Abrahamics – the intolerant. Does the last standing major pagan religion in the world deserve to be annihilated on the basis of hollow principles like tolerance? This is a question that Hindus need to ask themselves without consideration for what Abrahamics believe they should do. But under no circumstances should Hindus be played by moral pleas of tolerance and in no manner, should they be manipulated to believe that their words can be deemed just as violent as rampaging mobs burning the world down. Freedom of Speech – The hypocrisy of it all Neo-Atheism and especially, those by Ex-Muslims and Ex-Christians are essentially based on two concepts that they consider the axiomatic truths – Universal value system and binary value system, as discussed before, that draws heavily from the Enlightenment philosophy. Essentially, this means that Atheists believe that there are certain universal value systems that are to be accepted without any question. Individual rights, the dominance of man over nature, freedom of expression, overt reliance on logic and essentially, rejecting everything that is not “real”. The binary logic sees everything in black and white and is a concept of absolutism. Essentially, Atheism gives no room for any deviation from what it believes to be the ultimate truth and/or the ultimate value that is to be espoused. When ex-Muslims criticise Islam for its dogmatic practises, they must essentially declare that all religions are to be treated the exact same way since their binary logic does not allow them to understand a construct where a religion like Hinduism can have multitudes of value systems. When they talk about freedom of expression, they must be absolutists because any limitation means that they are being thoroughly non-binary. For Atheists, they must desecrate Hinduism if they desecrate Islam because since one religion is problematic, all religions must be equally problematic. If one religion has Jihadis who burn the world down, the other must also have the same kind of adherents even though there is no empirical evidence to prove the hypothesis. The beliefs of Liberalism and Atheism come from the enlightenment age which had no scope for the understanding of Hinduism since it was aimed at overthrowing the dogmatic Church. Thus, Hinduism and its criticism thereof simply remains a product of the Abrahamic lens that is donned by Liberals and Atheists without really the consideration that none of these principles applies in totality to Sanatan Dharma. In that sense of absolutism, freedom of speech and expression is also meant to be absolute according to most liberals and atheists, however, just as any absolute ideology, this too suffers from its inherent hypocrisies. Every culture has its natural limits to freedom of expression that draws from the cultural context of that particular society. For example, one would not go to Israel and name their child Adolf Hitler because there is a contextual limit to FoE that comes into play. Similarly, one would not use the “N-word” in the USA because attached to it are tales of suppression and one has to give due importance to the cultural and societal context before being an absolutist as far as FoE is concerned. This was proved remarkably well when in a podcast by Kushal Mehra, who calls himself a Hindu Atheist, three ex-Muslims refused to use the “N-word” even when the subject came up. The ex-Muslims on that podcast included Harris Sultan who is now equating Hindus to Jihadis because they would not roll over and accept the desecration of their harmless faith. If Harris Sultan was indeed an absolutist when it came to freedom of speech, he should have ideally had no problem with using the N-word rather openly. He did not because Sultan seems to be more clued in and respectful of the cultural context of the country he lives in and more importantly, the culture he has adopted as his own. Extending the same rationale, one has to question the Atheists that if they would not demand absolute FoE to use the “N-word” because of the history of subjugation attached to that word or would not expect a Jew to ‘tolerate’ anyone ‘hailing Hitler’, why would they then expect unbridled and unrestricted freedom of expression when talking about Hinduism? If these ex-Muslims would not call Jews ‘just as bad as the Nazis’ for voicing their exception to their faith being desecrated in the same manner as Hitler did, why would they say that Hindus are as bad as the Jihadis when Hindus were voicing their exception to their faith being desecrated in the exact same manner as the Jihadis did? To take this a step further, their wails of ‘freedom of expression’ became a loud shriek and words such as ‘Mujahindus’, drawing an equivalence with Mujahideen, were thrown about. Atheists posture as the arbiters of morality but here they are, conflating people trolling a person on social media with cast distance between them with actual terrorists. Speech is now violence we are to believe. And such people pretend to be FoE absolutists. The amusing aspect of this is the fact that Abhijit Iyer-Mitra himself does not hesitate to abuse the parents of individuals he disagrees with. Coming from him, it is especially difficult to accept such an argument. The other argument, presented by Kushal Mehra is that people in India do not understand how neo-atheists in the West operate. I humbly disagree with that assertion. We understand perfectly how neo-atheists operate in the West. Neo-atheists in western countries are overwhelmingly oriented towards the Left and suffer from delusions of their own. In the current context, just because they get a kick out of abusing our Gods, it does not mean that a deliberate provocation ought to go unchallenged. There also seems to be an insinuation that Hindus ought to be fearful of the mockery neo-atheists are capable of. With due regards, there is absolutely no reason for us to be fearful of them. Instead, they are the ones who ought to be careful with regards to the manner in which they use their speech. One does not know when cancel culture strikes them down. Also, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra and Kushal Mehra are good friends of mine but I am extremely disappointed with their ideological stance on the current debate revolving around atheism and freedom of expression. The hypocrisy of Harris Sultan is particularly astounding. He was recently threatened by a Muslim for his criticism of Islam. The offended Muslim had actually threatened to hurt Sultan’s family and had made it clear that he was aware of the atheist’s address. Hindus have done no such thing. Harris Sultan has personal knowledge of the fact that Hindus and radical Muslims are not the same. Even so, even he peddles the delusion of equivalence between the two. Why it is perfectly okay for Hindus to endorse desecration of Quran and oppose abuse of Hindu Gods At the very outset, it ought to be mentioned that the foremost loyalties of Hindus ought to lie with their Gods and Goddesses and not to concepts such as freedom of expression and other such things. It is perfectly permissible, even rational, for Hindus to not tolerate the abuse of the Devis and Devtas. There is no decree that FoE ought to be the foremost priority of Hindus. Atheists might value FoE above all else, and we have already established that they are not the FoE absolutists they pretend to be, but Hindus are under no compulsion to prioritise FoE over their Gods and Goddesses. It is also perfectly rational for people to have one set of rules for the out-group and completely different for the in-group, there is nothing wrong with that. Atheists do not have the authority to decide what is permissible and what is not. For them, insulting someone’s mother is crossing the line. We share the same sentiment. The only problem here is that we consider our Goddesses to be our mothers as well. Therefore, their insult towards our Goddesses invokes the same emotions in us that an insult to their mother evokes in them. They have no business dictating the relationship we share with our Gods and Goddesses. It also ought to be mentioned that neo-atheism is intrinsically Abrahamic in its approach. It arises out of the enlightenment worldview that was ingrained in Abrahamic philosophy. It is no surprise then that modern atheism has a distinctly protestant approach to it. Furthermore, it also ought to be mentioned that the fervour with which modern atheists approach politics is the same as a devotee approaches religion. Neo-atheists have merely substituted religion with the political ideology of their choice. Instead of proselytising on behalf of a religion, they proselytise to convert their people into their favoured political ideology. Instead of Gods and Goddesses, they want people to believe in absolute FoE, the rules of which they wish to dictate as the evidence clearly by the current saga, and the precepts of liberalism. Hindus are under no compulsion to live our lives by their rules. ‘Hindu’ atheists might fancy calling themselves Charvakas but they are no different from neo-atheists at all. They have utterly failed to distinguish themselves from the ideology that neo-atheists espouse. Calling nonsense by a different name does not change the fact that it is still nonsense. Before attempting to corner Hindus, it is incumbent upon atheists to provide evidence for their claim that the world will automatically be a better place without religion. It ought to be mentioned that the absence of religion does not automatically lead to a paradise for human rights and freedom of expression. In the 20th century, the biggest death toll was under Communism. In the 21st century, hundreds and thousands of Muslims have been locked up in ‘reeducation camps’ by Communist China. The crimes may not have been committed in the name of atheism but they do disprove the atheist claim that a lack of religion automatically leads to a better world. If the current episode has proved anything, it is that there is no essential difference between Charvakas and neo-atheists. The other thing that it has proved is ex-Muslims are remarkably obtuse about cultural sensitivities. The only good thing that has come out of it is the fact that Hindus have demonstrated that they shall no longer take kindly to the abuse of their Gods.

The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. 5 dangerous tropes and falsities that Shivraj Patil is encouraging by comparing Jihad with the Mahabharat war or Dharma Yuddh The Hindus' path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview. Nupur J Sharma 21 October 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] On Thursday (October 20), Congress leader Shivraj Patil stirred the hornet’s nest after he claimed that the concept of ‘Jihad’ is a part of the Bhagavad Gita and that it was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. Patil, who served as the Union Home Minister between 2004-2008 in the Sonia, sorry, Manmohan-led UPA government, made the contentious claims in Delhi during the launch of the biography of Congress leader Mohsina Kidwai. “There is a lot of discussion about Islam. And our work in the Indian Parliament is not about Jihad but ideals. Jihad is only evoked when all efforts, undertaken with a clear mind, fail,” he asserted. “The concept of Jihad is not limited to the Quran but also the Bhagavad Gita, which is a part of Mahabharat,” he continued. The UPA-era Minister then went a step ahead and alleged that Lord Krishna taught about Jihad to Arjuna during the Dharamyudh between the Pandavas and Kauravas in Kurukshetra. “Lord Krishna had taught Arjuna about Jihad (In Bhagwat Gita). And Jihad does not exist only in Hindu and Islamic scriptures. It is also present in the Holy text of Christians,” he insinuated. Shivraj Patil then justified the concept of Jihad and said, “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong.” There are, of course, multiple things which are deeply problematic with Shivraj Patil’s statement. The most glaring is his comparison of the Islamic concept of Jihad to Dharma Yuddha, which was being fought during Mahabharat. His assertion that the concept of Jihad exists not only in Islam but in every religious text, including that of Hinduism and Christianity is one that finds no basis in reality and we will delve into the difference in detail. Another interesting aspect of the statement made by Shivraj Patil is that he unwittingly seems to have revealed the motivation behind making such a statement. In his statement, Patil says “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong”, essentially saying that those who commit Jihad are only responding to aggression against them, thereby whitewashing the theological evidence of what Jihad truly means and also, brushing under the carpet the Jihadi foundation of Islamic terrorism. This statement comes as no surprise since one has to remember how Patil was sacked after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack. In fact, after accusations of him delaying the response to the attack surfaced, Patil had lied to claim that no aircraft was available in Delhi and therefore, there was a delay in sending in NSG commandos. “No aircraft was available here (in Delhi), and then we called one from Chandigarh and dispatched 250-300 NSG commandos within two-three hours to Mumbai and I also travelled with them. That was a freight aircraft and we travelled to Mumbai standing”, he had said. This lie was summarily debunked at the time. Why Patil chose to lie is something we can leave up to the readers to speculate. Be that as it may, the purpose of this article is to discuss how Shivraj Patil is inexact, to put it mildly, when he conflates the concept of Dharma Yuddh with Jihad and essentially says that the Mahabharat was “Jihad” that Bhagwan Krishna had told Arjun to wage. What is Jihad Jihad is one of the most sacred duties that pious Muslims are meant to perform. The word “Jihad”, is an Arabic word which means “struggle”. It is an established fact that Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam, using all means available to Muslims, including violence. This kind of Jihad is often referred to as “Holy War”. Now, when Jihad is a means to spread Islam, logic extends that Jihad would be waged against non-Muslims or those who are considered non-believers in the word of Prophet Mohammad and denounce the concept of “There is no God but Allah”. Essentially, Jihad is a concept of the ultimate subjugation of the non-believer, where, either by convincing them or by using violence, the non-believers are supposed to be brought to the “one true path” of Islam. This is not an opinion formed out of thin air. Islam religious scriptures are evidence of the fact that Jihad is waged against non-believers, using violence, if necessary. Here are some of the verses Wasim Rizvi, who later converted to Hinduism, had cited in his petition where he had asked for 26 verses that promote violence against non-Muslims to be deleted. Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) Verse 191: And kill them [in battle] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah1 is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Surah 3 (Ali ‘Imran) Verse 151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority.1 And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers. Surah 8 (Al-Anfal) Verse 65: O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are steadfast], they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand. Verse 69: So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Surah 9 (At-Tawbah) Verse 5: And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Verse 14: Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts [i.e., desires] of a believing people. Verse 23: O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Verse 28: O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Ḥarām after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Verse 29 Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah1 willingly while they are humbled. Verse 37: Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it1 lawful one year and unlawful another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah2 and [thus] make lawful what Allah has made unlawful. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people Verse 58 And among them are some who criticize you concerning the [distribution of] charities. If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry. Verse 111 Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment. Verse 123: O you who have believed, fight against those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. These are, of course, just some of the verses. The full list of the verses cited by Wasim Rizvi can be read here . What is Dharma and Dharma Yuddh Dharma, in itself, is rather difficult to articulate in English since no parallel word or phrase exists to capture its essence. It is a concept inimitable to Sanatan Dharma and the English vocabulary simply falls short. I would therefore depend on greater minds and their wisdom in an attempt to article what it stands for. “Like the English word ‘law’, the word ‘dharma’ has taken on different connotations. Its original wider meaning is ‘law’. The dharma of any object upholds its existence and regulates its behaviour. It is in this sense that we refer to the dharma of nature, the dharma of water, the dharma of fire and so on…This wider meaning led to the use of the term while describing the laws governing other-worldly objects, irrespective of whether these laws were verifiable or not! The term ‘dharma’ gradually encompassed the mutual relation between Heaven, hell, reincarnation, god, individual (soul), creation and the like. In fact, the word ‘dharma’ soon came to be almost exclusively used in its other-worldly connotation.… The actions of human beings in this world were thought to affect his existence in the hereafter. So ‘dharma’ came to also mean that which upheld his life in the hereafter. In the past, the rules that governed worldly relations between individuals and nations were also termed ‘dharma’ . This is clear from terms such as dharma of war (yuddhadharma), dharma of governance (rajdharma), dharma of conduct (vyavahaardharma) and the like”, wrote Veer Savarkar (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.309-310). From what Veer Savarkar wrote, it is evident that Dharma is a “duty” that is to be performed, to uphold the purpose of existence. It is the law which governs the conduct of that entity in the fulfilment of his existential duty and the path one must follow to attain Moksha. Dharma, therefore, is not religion, however, it is a part of wider religious tenets. About Dharma Yuddha, Koenraad Elst once wrote , “The proverbial war in the Hindu worldview is the great war of the Bharata clan, on which the mega-epic Mahabharat elaborates. This epic philosophizes profusely on the principles of dharma yuddha even as it describes the successive episodes of a real-life war. Yuddha means “struggle, war”. Dharma, “sustenance, that which sustains”, effectively means “maintaining the correct relation between the part and the whole”, “playing your specific role in the whole that you are part of”. Dharma Yuddh is therefore one’s struggle to fulfil their existential duty. Dharma yuddha means “struggle in accordance with ethics/Dharma” or a “chivalrous war” to uphold morality, ethics, honour, so on and so forth. How Shivraj Patil was wrong in equating Dharma Yuddh and Jihad The basic flaw in what Patil has said is the fact that the comparison between Dharma Yuddh and Jihad is like a comparison between apples and oranges. While Dharma Yuddh is the struggle to perform one’s duties towards oneself, one’s Gods and the society at large, Jihad in itself is a concept of slavery where others are subjugated in the name of the “One True God”, by violence if necessary. Having said that, let us, one by one, talk about how Patil was far divorced from reality when he equated Mahabharat with Jihad. 1. The first and foremost, most glaring falsity in that statement is that while Mahabharat was fought between two branches of the same family, who followed the same religion, Jihad is patently against those who are non-believers in the tenets of Islam. Mahabharat was about two sets of cousins who were pitted against each other for the throne and war became necessary when a peaceful resolution failed. The Mahabharat Dharma Yuddh did not happen over whose God was superior or was the “one true God”. It did not take place as a religious campaign to either spread Hinduism or to ensure that other religions submit to tenets of Sanatan Dharma, even by violence if necessary. During the course of the war of Mahabharat, no religious places were defiled and no mosque was changed into a temple after the place of worship was desecrated. In history, however, whenever Jihad has been waged, it was specifically against non-Muslims to spread Islam by the sword and one of the main characteristics of Jihad was the desecration of religious places. For example, the unrelenting attacks on Kashi Vishwanath began shortly after Islamic invaders entered India. It was first attacked in the 12th century by Qutb al-Din Aibak. The temple’s peak was damaged in the attack, still, Puja ceremonies continued there even after that. History has it that the destruction of the sacred Hindu temple was carried out under Mohammad of Ghori’s orders. The Kashi Vishwanath Mandir was once again demolished during the rule of Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517). Evidence implies that Sikandar Lodi was responsible for the invasion of Kashi Vishwanath. In 1669 CE, the ultimate assault on the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was carried out by the Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb. He demolished the temple and replaced it with the Gyanvapi masjid. The remains of the erstwhile mandir can still be seen in the foundation, the columns, and the rear part of the mosque. The Kashi Vishwanath Temple complex, which stands today, is adjacent to the disputed mosque complex and where devotees can do puja and prayers, was built by the great Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore in 1780. In fact, the Islamic record of Maasir-i-Alamgiri states that on April 9, 1669, Aurangzeb had issued a ‘farman’ decree, “to governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teachings and religious practices.” Further, according to Muraqat-i-Abul Hasan, Aurangzeb ordered his soldiers and assistants from Cuttack, Orissa, and on to Medinipur in Bengal to destroy every house with a Hindu deity that was built in the last 12 years. Aurangzeb further ordered that if any temples were reconstructed, they should be demolished again completely so that Hindus could not revive worship at the sites. According to two Akhbarat dated 28th March and 14th May 1680, even temples in the loyal and friendly Amber state, such as the famed Temple of Jagdish at Goner in Amber, were not spared due to his religious fervour. History is littered with examples where the places of worship of Kaffirs were brutally and mercilessly desecrated and destroyed because the Islamic barbarians, who waged Jihad in Bharata, considered it “holy war” – changing Dar-ul-Harb to Dar-ul-Islam, which meant ruining every religious symbol of Hindus to establish Islamic symbols instead. In Mahabharat, there is no commandment given by Bhagwan Krishna to Arjun that requires him to attack the faith of any non-Hindu religious group. It was a battle where even the rules of a righteous and just war were established. How the “just rules of engagement” degraded gradually, based on the unjust methods of the Kauravas, is a matter of a separate debate altogether. In fact, the reason why Mahabharat is called a righteous war is because it was triggered by a woman, Draupadi, being dishonoured. There is no such concept in Islam, in fact, Jihad essentially condones taking sex slaves and war prisoners, which is antithetical to the concept of Dharma itself. 2. In Hindu history, hardly any religious or theological questions have been solved by war. Wars, as we see in the case of Mahabharat, have been the means to settle questions of authority and justice. Questions of a religious and theological nature have always been settled by vaad-vivaad – discussion and debate. Jihad, however, is a different beast altogether. The fact that even theological supremacy against non-believers has been a subject of war, is evidenced by the numerous wars that have been fought since time immemorial – from the battle of Badr, the battle of Uhud, and so on and so forth. From medieval times to now, when Islamic terrorism is rampant against non-Muslims all of the hues, in an attempt to turn nations into Dar-ul-Islam. In fact, it is pertinent to point out that Mahabharat itself was not a war to settle religious authority as was the case, for example, during the battle of Karbala. Therefore, at an extremely conceptual level, war has never been the means of settling questions of religious authority, religious supremacy etc in Hinduism whereas, the “Holy War” or Jihad has always been a means to settle such issues in the Islamic world. It is therefore outlandish to claim that the very concept of Dharma Yuddh and that of Jihad are similar. 3. Another important aspect to ponder upon is that Dharma and religion itself are not the same. Religion is a set of commandments, rituals, traditions etc to be followed whereas Dharma depends on the time and place. For example, Arjun’s dharma on the battlefield was to wage war against his own relatives, whereas, in a different setting, his Dharma could be that of performing Charity. Islam, however, is a religious duty of every Muslim and is a part of the wider religious commandments of Islam. The two concepts are, therefore, foundationally not the same. 4. One true formless God is an Abrahamic exclusivist concept, and anything similar in the Sanatan theology is entirely of a different philosophical nature. For example, one of the favourite tropes of those who wish to Abrahamise Hinduism is asserting that the concept of Brahman is similar to the concept of “One True God” in Islam. That, however, is not true. Brahman, however, is not a literal “one true God”, but a philosophical concept of a Cosmic Principle and consciousness. Therefore, to say that Hinduism too follows the concept of “One True God” is patently false. 5. The trope that Hindus too worship “One True God” and that Mahabharat was similar to Jihad in Islam is peddled by several Jihadists and Islamists in an attempt to delegitimise Hinduism and assert their exclusivist view that there is ‘No God but Allah’. Even those like Zakir Naik have peddled this trope. Zakir Naik’s problematic views have been picked up by several Islamic websites and Indian media houses that further the same trope. Here is an example from mainstream The Print, run by Shekhar Gupta. Article by The Print It is important to understand the problematic trope saying “Ishwar, Allah Tero Naam” has been long peddled as a syncretic version of how every individual finds their own path to the one true form of divinity, however, in the name of syncretism, Jihad, which aims to subjugate those who don’t submit to their one true God is often pushed under the rug. Shivraj Patil’s statement was essentially the path that Hindus need to tread if they wish to get closer to their own annihilation. While the Hindu might accept Islam as a legitimate path to the divine for those who follow the religion, the Muslim, at least the pious Muslim, would believe that idol worship is satanic and those who don’t follow THEIR true god deserves to be converted by the sword. The Hindus’ path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview.

It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. Orphans of Bengal: Disillusioned. Resigned. Defeated. Broken It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfill the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realize that apathy is the self-defense of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. Nupur J Sharma 4 May 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] On the 2nd of May, the media reported on democracy, finally triumphing over ‘tyranny’ and ‘fascism’. Mamata Banerjee had summarily and decisively defeated BJP. A hard-fought battle, indeed. Through it all, I kept thinking back to the time I was interrogated in the police headquarters at Lal Bazaar, by an officer of the ‘Rowdy Department’. While TMC and BJP celebrated their victories, TMC for sweeping the state in a landslide and BJP for bettering their score, I battled with my own thoughts. As the actual wins continued to trickle in, we had just about wrapped up our election coverage at 10:00 PM, after reporting the victory of Suvendu Adhikari over Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram and the trends, that had stabilized somewhere about 77 seats for BJP and 210 for TMC. I was exhausted and I hardly spoke to my family. Fought with a dear friend even. As I could hear sounds of celebration out on the roads, a part of me knew that these celebratory sounds would soon turn into war bugles by the winning party and cries of despair by the losers. And so it did. Soon after TMC swept the state, news of startling violence began to trickle in. Avijit Sarkar was brutally lynched to death by alleged TMC cadres and just before his death, he had uploaded two videos on Facebook where he had narrated his harrowing ordeal. He had spoken about how TMC goons had even tortured and killed his adopted puppy. BJP karyakartas were being murdered, lynched and their homes being burnt to ashes and looted. In another incident, alleged TMC goons were seen thrashing female BJP workers in broad daylight in Kendamari village in Nandigram. BJP National General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya tweeted about the incident, along with a disturbing video. It could be seen that the two BJP workers were thrashed to the ground by two men. They pulled the victims by the hair while the onlookers stood as mute spectators. The man behind the camera could be heard encouraging the accused men to continue with their assault. The women fought back and tried to defend themselves after being assaulted in full public glare. One of the men intervened and the two victims could later be seen walking away. With the honour and lives of women being trampled upon and men being killed, another disturbing news came to the fore. Swapan Dasgupta, the BJP candidate from Tarakeshwar tweeted about 1,000 Hindus families in Birbhum, ready to flee the area because of the carnage by TMC marauders. Through it all, through the several pictures of carnage and bloodshed, through the several videos where you could hear the desperate pleas for help, I kept my head down and worked, intermittently talking to my friends and family about just how distressing and dire the situation really was. Disillusioned. Resigned. Defeated. Broken. The thing about violence is that it always happens to “other people” until it starts knocking on your door. The distance that journalists can build between them and the macabre incidents they report is rather staggering. Unphased by the carnage, we end up reporting thousands of cases where men are murdered, women are raped and killed and humanity dies in darkness. But for me, this felt different. Perhaps because I am a hypocrite. Perhaps because I felt the pain of others far more when I could almost smell the blood from my office. Perhaps because all the other cases I reported felt to have happened to ‘others’, far away from my own circle of security. This felt too close. And as it did, I felt unbridled rage taking over. The history of politics in Bengal has always been violence. Every regime that governed Bengal came to power stepping on the dead bodies of Hindus laying on the ground soaked with their blood. Mamata Banerjee came to power after the Nandigram carnage, where thousands were killed by the Communist regime. The communists ruled with an iron fist, killing thousands in their regime’s wake. In 1972, when the Congress won, it had unleashed massive violence on polling day. There were several allegations of rigging. There was gunfire, unbridled violence to either stop people from voting or force them to vote the Congress way. In a Telegraph article, it is noted: “There was gunfire and bombing. The Congress had taken complete control of the election set-up and was freely rigging the polls,” said Gopal Banerjee, 56, a CPM leader from Baranagar who had accompanied Basu on a round of the constituency as an 18-year-old that day. “Jyotibabu visited a few polling stations and decided to withdraw his candidature. ‘This cannot be tolerated,’ he told us,” Banerjee said. And right before the 1972 election, where Congress won, there was the Sainbari massacre . Where a family of Congress supporters were brutalised in the most ghastly manner. A mother was fed rice, soaked in her murdered son’s blood. Nirupam Sen, a known figure of the CPI(M) party, subsequently inducted as a member of the party’s central committee, was alleged to have led this massacre. Soon after the incident, the then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi visited the Sain house to console the family. To share their grief. To tell them that they were not alone and the party leadership that the family gave their life for, was going to stand by them, toe to toe. Did it matter that she was the Prime Minister of India? Not really. She was also the leader of a party that was in power and as a leader, it was her duty to make sure that her soldiers knew she would not abandon them. The conspicuous absence of BJP leaders Today, when BJP leaders are being killed, the party response has been abysmal, to say the least. For hours after the killings started, the party leadership was conspicuous in its absence. While the official handles of BJP Bengal etc were tweeting, there was not one leader who was visible. On the ground or even on the far more protected space of social media. One could argue that regional strife should be handled by regional leaders. Perhaps someone like Babul Supriyo. A young, dynamic leader who rose from the ashes (not so much) and led his party to victory (well, not so much either) and has braved the violence to stand by those who look up to him (don’t think anyone does, and no he did not). He instead, tweeted a helpless tweet, yelping for help himself. Babul tweeted helplessly, inspiring little faith in his leadership or the leadership of the local unit of BJP. His message was rather clear.. I will tweet. But “I won’t stand by my own people because I am out of the cojones I showed while asking for votes and asking karyakartas to put their lives on the line to get me and my party elected”. In fact, there are audio clips doing the round where BJP karyakartas on the ground are basically admitting that the leadership is absent. There is no party. No sangathan. No leadership. They have been left alone to fend for themselves and protect themselves from the marauders after the leadership promised them that they will not be abandoned. Amidst all of this, BJP has declared that it would do a “nation wide dharna” and that JP Nadda would visit the families of the karyakartas under siege from TMC. Let us take a moment here to evaluate the response by BJP. While even leaders like Suvendu Adhikari, who is arguable the most powerful leader today in Bengal after Mamata Banerjee, is being attacked, BJP has chosen to take the path of Gandhi, which essentially means sitting quietly and doing absolutely nothing. What else is a Dharna, really? Just sit and hope that the public shaming helps shame the murderers? The marauders? The absolute shameless? Optics matter more than the lives of party workers? The grand issue with BJP is that while it sits in government with a brute majority, it has not the faintest clue how to wield that power for its own people. The opposition, however, is far less idealistic. They don’t care about what people who oppose them would think. They care about what their allies, their voters would think. BJP, on the other hand, appears to care far more about what the international media would write about them, what the Lutyens journalists would tweet, and how Congress would use it to leverage their own political fortunes. Their supporters can scream hoarse but statesman-itis that seems to afflict the BJP leadership is far more concerned about the optics for the ones that rather see them dead and gone than the ones who put their lives on the line for them, thinking that the party itself would keep working for their ideological, political and civilisational existence. With Bengal, the party knew exactly how the election would end. If they won, TMC would unleash their wrath on their cadre out of frustration. If they lose, which they now have, TMC would unleash their wrath on their cadres for pure retribution. Having known that, the local leadership made up of butterflies like Babul Supriyo have gone “underground” and expressed their inability to help their cadre. The BJP leadership told the local cadre to go forth and fight. To make this last stand for them. Because they would be protected. They would be looked after. But the white-collar-bhadroloks of BJP-Delhi does not seem to have the slightest clue about the street politics of Bengal. Perhaps if they are too concerned about the optics and are unable to protect their own workers, they should just tell their workers to protect themselves, in so many words. Self-defence, after all, is a divine right. Self-defense is as much a state of mind as it is about the weapons used and techniques employed. Let the BJP workers think that they are worth defending. And the process starts with the Delhi-white-collar politicians making way for local leaders who know how street politics works in Bengal. What it takes to defend their workers. It is time to make way for someone like Suvendu Adhikari and give him the power to do as he deems fit. It is time to stand up straight. It is time to be heard. It is time to fulfil the Dharma BJP was elected for. The BJP needs to realise that apathy is the self-defence of the powerless, and they are now powerless enough to be nonchalant. The BJP faces an identity crisis similar to that of Congress in 2011. It is time to be counted for those who stood by them and trusted them, without worrying about those who will burn this nation to see them gone.