How and why I went from ‘Beef eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who eat beef are not my people’ 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. Nupur J Sharma 4 January 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Most people who grew up in a traditional Hindu family are well aware of the significance of the cow and the taboo against eating beef. The cow is worshipped and revered and there are quite a few rituals where the cow is required. In a large part of the Hindu society, the taboo against eating beef is such that consuming the meat of a cow could lead to being disowned if people in the family became aware of it. All of this is known and is not challenged by anybody. Most of us who were raised in ordinary traditional Hindu families grew up with the knowledge that beef is the one thing that we were strictly not allowed to consume, under any circumstances. Being from a vegetarian family, the subject of meat-eating itself was seldom discussed, however, for several families I knew, even eating meat in certain restaurants and hotels was avoided because one could never be cent per cent sure what meat was served. And the reasons cited for the taboo were entirely religious. We worship the cow, we do not eat it. It is one of the dogmas that was never challenged, at least, not in my immediate circle growing up. Even growing up in friend circles which were predominantly Hindu, the idea of eating beef somewhere was never voiced. It is something that just never came up. The taboo against beef is so internalized that it became one of the dogmas that are practically unchallenged. Reverence for the cow is part of our identity. It is a part of who we are as a collective. Now the world has changed a lot in the past few decades. Teenagers often travel outside their hometowns for their education and young adults move out because of jobs or education and numerous other reasons. Among a cosmopolitan crowd with liberal values, it is easy to lose touch with our roots and sight of our identity. Even then, the farthest the overwhelming majority of us travel is the opinion that consuming beef is a culinary choice. Some might choose to eat it but we, personally, will not because it goes against the values that have been inculcated within us. The notion that consuming beef is merely a culinary preference is almost always due to our exposure to a cosmopolitan crowd. It never has anything to do with conclusions we have reached after careful consideration following a reading of our scriptures. Just as the taboo against consuming beef is a consequence of upbringing and not scripture reading, similarly, the notion that consuming beef is merely a culinary preference is a consequence of exposure to cosmopolitan influence. The scriptural justification that is often made after that conclusion has already been reached. In fact, my journey was similar. When I was 4, we moved to a new house and the most predominant image in my memory from that time is how we worshipped a cow before we stepped foot in the house. I remember gau-mata dressed up with bells and ornamented cloth. Us putting kumkum on her forehead, and hoping, that her blessing illuminates our new house. Growing up, I remember my grandfather taking me to the nearby gaushala to feed gau-mata on my birthday. On festivals, I remember the first few rotis being made as a prasad to gau-mata. Well into college, even the discussion of beef consumption was not really something that was discussed, as it is today. The first time I was confronted with my ideological position on beef was when I was in Pune, Maharashtra and a bunch of us friends decided to go to Hard Rock Cafe which had only recently opened up in the city. Several dishes had beef in them, and when I looked at the menu, I got uncomfortable. While I wondered whether I should even eat there or perhaps just stick to my coke, a friend proceeded to order a beef burger. I didn’t really say anything. I simply excused myself, told her I had to leave for an assignment and met up with other friends for lunch. We ate Misal Pav. The person who ordered the beef burger was a friend and continued to be so for a long time. At that time, beef-eating was her culinary preference which I did not agree with, and for me, she had a right to that choice and I had simply no right to lecture her or tell her that it was not acceptable as a Hindu (she was one too). But somewhere along the line, my opinions changed. It went from ‘it is her culinary preference’ to ‘beef is ok, but cow-meat is not’ to ‘Hindus should not eat beef, period’. It is under these circumstances that we approach the recent discussion around beef. The Beef Controversy There is a lot of discussion underway regarding the permissibility of the consumption of beef in the Hindu religion. On one side, there are people who say those who eat beef cannot be Hindu while there are others who maintain beef is a culinary preference. I, personally, lean towards the former. I am, obviously, no Dharmaguru to make that assertion, so, of course, I am speaking in my personal capacity. One of the claims that is made to justify eating beef is that Hinduism is a diverse religion and there is nothing wrong if some people eat beef. But this is a bizarre conclusion to reach. There is the diversity of beliefs, yes, but one thing that a large part of the Hindu society believes in is that cow is an animal to revere and beef should not be consumed. It is for these reasons that it is perplexing to me that such a notion is even floated. I think this is where the lack of a central authority in Hinduism is most acutely felt unlike Christianity where there is the Church and in Islam where the book serves as the central authority and leaves very little room for interpretation. The argument often furthered is that there are indeed certain scriptures that allow beef-eating while others condemn it. As I have said earlier, I am no Dharmaguru and hence, the scriptural interpretation is not something I will not get into. Why certain sects evolved and started eating beef, was there a Mughal influence, and which scriptural context should be followed by all Hindus is something I am neither equipped to comment on, nor it is my place. However, I can say with certainty that in most average Hindu households, beef eating is not permissible for deeply religious reasons. For that reason, I mostly find the intellectual discourse around beef-eating rather vacuous and almost tone-deaf to what goes on in most Hindu households. The fact that we may know someone who eats beef cannot be considered the standard by which we take ideological positions on issues. If someone knows a murderer, are we to justify murder on that premise? If someone knows a person who likes to kill exotic animals for sport, are we to start justifying the act altogether? The argument that “I know someone who eats beef and are still Dharmic” is a vacuous attempt to justify personal habits and extrapolate that to taking an ideological position. To me personally, it appears to be disingenuous and I try to keep away from such pursuits. Just because we know someone who is doing something that might be against the basic tenets of Hinduism, doesn’t mean that the dogma has to be done away with. To suggest that it must, signifies arrogance, and not to mention, stupidity. The other argument that is often furthered is that several Hindu communities do consume beef and hence, not consuming beef cannot be a litmus test of being Hindu. Frankly, Hindus have liberalised their religion so much that nothing really is considered to be a litmus test for being a Hindu, however, I have a problem with legitimising beef-eating using this argument. One of the states that is often cited is Kerala. “Kerala Hindus eat beef. Are they then not Hindus?” My argument here is rather simple – it is entirely possible that the sect evolved into eating beef for reasons other than them considering it acceptable from the time of their ancestors. For this, I would redirect you to an article written by user @ dauhshanti . He beautifully traced the Hindu history of Kerala and proved how beef-eating was never a core part of that sect to begin with. He writes, “In the old days, warriors of Kerala who were mostly from the Nair community, once trained in Kalaris, the schools of martial arts, took an oath to protect Brahmins and cows, as part of service to the king. This is recorded by Duarte Barbosa, a 16th-century Portuguese writer”. “The King then asks him if he will maintain the customs and rules of the other Nayres (Nairs), and he and his kinsmen respond ‘ Yes.’ Then the King commands him to gird on his right side a sword with a red sheath, and when it is girt on he causes him to approach near to himself and la, his right hand on his head, saying therewith certain words which none may hear, seemingly a prayer, and then embraces him saying ‘ Paje Gubrantarca, that is to say ‘ Protect cows and Bramenes (Brahmins)” A similar oath was made by the most powerful Nair kings of Kerala, the Samuthiris or Zamorins of Calicut before their royal coronation “At Yagneswaram he is met by Vemaneheri Namputiri, a descendant of Melattur Agnihotri. The Eralped (Zamorin) gives him an ola (text), promising to protect Brahmins, temples and cows.” (The Zamorins of Calicut by K.V. Krishna Ayyar) - 16-17th-century French traveller Pyrard de Laval also writes about reverence to cows given by people of Kerala. ” I must not forget to mention, in passing, and as the opportunity arises, the great honour rendered by these people to cows, however low-bred, filthy, and all covered with dirt and dung they may be. They are allowed to enter the king’s palace, and whithersoever their way leads, without anyone disputing their passage; even the king himself, and all the greatest lords, give place to them with the utmost respect and reverence, and the same with bulls and oxen.” (The Voyage of Francois Pyrard of Laval, Volume 1) These excerpts presented by him clearly point towards the fact that beef-eating was something that was introduced later. This could very well be true for several other sects that consume beef today. Therefore, using this argument to say that beef-eating should be considered acceptable, is to say that the disintegrated version of Dharma must be acceptable to us. I don’t believe in that. Not in today’s day and age when Dharma seems to be slipping right in front of our eyes. While those who take the position that consuming beef is unacceptable and should be considered a taboo (and a non-negotiable) are considered ‘orthodox’, those who say that it is a culinary preference theorise that the former is trying to mirror Islamists and are attempting to ex-communicate people from the Hindu fold for eating beef. That argument is equally vacuous, if I can be honest here. The Hindu society has lost its organisational structure. There is absolutely no way that anyone can be ex-communicated from the Hindu society, least of all, on the say-so of someone like me. There is no metric to judge whether someone is a Hindu or not. Whether that is a good thing or bad, again depends on how ideologically rooted one is. Therefore, to deride those who wish to stick to the fact that beef-eating is a non-negotiable, or at least, should be a non-negotiable in the Hindu society, with this argument, is a strawman at best. Nobody can or should give certificates of Hinduism and nobody is a representative of the entire Hindu society. However, talking about personal non-negotiables is essential because it is out of those personal opinions that a societal opinion is crafted. Why the Taboo against beef eating needs to be strengthened Hinduism is a living, breathing religion. It changes with the times and for the times (again, whether that is good or bad depends on where you stand ideologically). In the current times, it is my personal belief that beef-eating has to be stigmatised as it has now become not only a matter of personal faith but a matter of cultural and religious resistance. Beef, in today’s world, has become the single most subject that is invoked to mock Hindus and show them “their place”. Remind them, that they are nothing in a religionless country where minorities are mollycoddled and the majority faith is desecrated to uphold mythical values of secularism. Beef parties are specifically held to mock Hindus, cows are deliberately slaughtered on the road, Hindus are called cow-piss drinkers by Leftists and Islamists and beef, has become their rallying point against the Hindu faith. One can even draw a parallel with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. There is a reason why the movement resonated even with those who did not believe in Lord Ram or were his traditional bhaktas. It was a symbol of Hindu resistance and assertion that our faith will not be taken hostage by a secular state that is hell-bent on giving ancient tyrants far more respect than the people of the land. For me, personally, it is this deliberate desecration of my faith that hand-held me from believing that ‘beef-eating is a culinary preference’ to ‘those who consume beef cannot be considered Hindus’. Does that mean I have the authority to excommunicate someone from the faith? No. Does that mean that it is a strict non-negotiable for me? Absolutely. Do I mean that the Hindu society itself should stigmatise the consumption of beef in their own circles? Yes. The cow, traditionally, has been a symbol of Hindu resistance against foreign invasions and imperialism. For centuries, the greatest heroes of our civilization have been motivated to achieve great feats by virtue of their devotion towards the cow. There is the story of the great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj who was so enraged by the slaughter of a cow that he attacked Adil Shahi soldiers as a young boy. The ban on cow slaughter was strictly enforced during the rule of the Maratha Empire. The devotion towards the cow and the ban on cow slaughter was not only enforced by the Maratha Empire but other great Hindu kingdoms and Empires as well. The cow has always been the symbol of Hindu resistance towards imperialism. It is for this reason that the efforts to normalize beef-eating feels like an assault on Hinduism itself. It is no secret that the Hindu Civilization today is under attack from various nefarious fronts that seek to destroy it. Every day, the news of idols being desecrated and Temples being attacked makes it way to the news. There is a Jihad against the Hindu Civilization in Kashmir and Maoists and Communists and Evangelical Christians seek to destroy our civilization as well. And now, a symbol of our cultural resistance is being reduced to a mere culinary preference. The objective here clearly is to turn Hindus against the ethos of our civilization itself and make our way of life a soft target in the process. Whether beef can be consumed by a Hindu or not is a debate that has been settled long ago and only strengthened by the events that followed foreign invasions. That a debate has been initiated regarding the matter is a further indication of the attacks against our civilization. Historically, Hindus have been force-fed beef in order to forcefully convert them to Islam. That tactic is used even today. In 2019, a Hindu woman was force-fed beef to convert her to Islam. In 2020 a similar case came to light as well. Cows have been slaughtered to insult the Hindu people. And now we are told that beef eating is merely a culinary preference. It is important to note here that in my view, any Hindu who sees how beef-eating is used to undermine the very sanctity of our faith and our very existence, could give up beef since it is a ‘preference’ for them and not a staple diet. For me, the normalisation of beef-eating today 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.

Muslims chose to stay back in India: An analysis of the mythical, unsubstantiated trope that is used to make Hindus feel guilty 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 Nupur J Sharma 6 August 2020 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Hindus celebrated across the world as the 500-year-old battle to reclaim the Ram Janmabhoomi culminated with Prime Minister Narendra Modi doing the ‘Bhoomi Pujan’ for the Bhavya Ram Mandir. The 5 century battle by Hindus to reclaim their place of worship, their dignity and their cultural heritage should have been an occasion that was celebrated regardless of religion since, in India, Hindu culture is what has kept the country what it is today. However, unsurprisingly, the ‘liberal’ ecosystem was busy not only ruining the end of their mythical “secular” nation but also furthering inane and baseless arguments to make Hindus feel guilty about reclaiming what is rightfully theirs. One of the foremost arguments used by the apologetics of Islamism when any criticism of the barbarity heaped by invaders is mounted is that any such criticism is misplaced since the current lot of Muslims and their ancestors ‘chose to stay back in India’ even when they had the option to move to the Islamic State of Pakistan after the partition. Essentially, what they intend to say is that the Muslim citizens in India, or even their ancestors, should not be questioned about the acts of Muslim invaders because they are committed to India as much as the next Hindu. For the most part, at least theoretically, the argument that Muslims of India cannot be held responsible for the barbarity heaped by the Muslim invaders on Hindus is correct. Unless they demolished the Ram Temple with their own hands and helped in the construction of the disputed structure that was called Babri, it is theoretically incorrect to blame them for the actions of Muslim invader thousands of years ago. However, practically, we have seen that the rose-tinted image of the Indian Muslim does not always hold true. If Muslims were not beholden to the atrocities heaped by Muslim invaders and were indeed peace-loving citizens who acknowledged the atrocities committed, there would not have been widespread riots and systematic murder of Hindus, even in Pakistan, after the disputed structure was demolished by Karsevaks. In fact, if Indian Muslims were truly mindful of what the invaders had taken away from Hindus, they would have voluntarily given up their claim on the disputed structure, as KK Mohammad had suggested. However, that was not the case. Till date, even after the Bhoomi Pujan, threats issued to Hindus by Islamists and general Muslims have not stopped. From the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to Muslim leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi, the threats to Hindus prove that the image of the Indian Muslim that Liberals want to paint so desperately have a few chinks, to say the least. It is to be noted that these are some of the most powerful representatives of the Muslim community in India. They have been elected by the Muslims and are revered by the Muslims. And hence, to say that their opinion does not represent the popular sentiment amongst the Muslim population could be as ludicrous as saying that PM Modi does not find resonance with Hindus of India. When the apparent and very real reaction of Indian Muslims goes against the stated narrative, liberals then turn to bizarre arguments to ensure that the image they have created, one of eternal victimhood, doesn’t crumble to the ground. One of the favourite arguments that are furthered by this delusional coterie is that Indian Muslims stayed back in India out of choice, allegiance and love for India and thus, casting aspersions on their patriotism or even their “tolerance” of the Hindu faith is unfair. Even as the threats by Muslims threw thick and fast, the narrative that was peddled was that “secular” India was being unfair to Muslims who chose to stay back in India. In fact, the narrative often goes a step further. Many claim that “most” Muslims chose to stay back in India and hence, the Muslim community, on the whole, is patriotic and beholden to India and Indian ethos, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. However, is that premise valid? Did “most” Muslims choose to stay back in India post-partition? What do the numbers say? During the provincial elections in 1946, it is an undisputed fact that Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Muslim League which had stirred up religious passions with its demand for a separate Islamic State at the time. The Muslim League asserted that Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist in the same country and thus, Muslims should have a country of their own carved out of India itself, post-independence. In total, 87% seats were won by the Muslim League in India in 1946. A closer look at the numbers shows how the demand for a separate Islamic State bolstered the political demand for a separate state. The table shows a comparison between the seats won by the Muslim League in 1937 and 1946. As one can see, the number of states that were won by the Muslim League of Jinnah went up manyfold in 1946. In every state, the rise in the popularity of Muslim League was substantial. In states like Bihar, for example, from zero seats in 1937, the Muslim League won a whopping 34 seats out of 40 seats. In Madras, the increase was from 9 to all 29 seats. The pattern holds across all states, or provinces, as they were called during that period. It is to be remembered that though the two-nation theory itself existed for much longer, a formal political demand was made for a separate state for Muslims in 1940. It was in 1940 that Jinnah formally announced the demand in Lahore. At the 1940 Muslim League conference in Lahore Jinnah said: “Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature… It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes… To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.” It was in Lahore that the Muslim League formally recommitted itself to creating an independent Muslim state, including Sindh, Punjab, Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province and Bengal, that would be “wholly autonomous and sovereign”. The resolution guaranteed protection for non-Muslim religions. The Lahore Resolution moved by the sitting Chief Minister of Bengal A. K. Fazlul Huq was adopted on 23 March 1940, and its principles formed the foundation for Pakistan’s first constitution. The formalisation of the demand in 1940 led to a huge surge in the Muslim population supporting the Muslim League and by extension, supporting the demand for a separate Islamic State called Pakistan, which would be carved out of India. It is thus intriguing when several apologists claim that most Muslims stayed back in India out of choice and that most Muslims at the time did not want a separate Islamic state. There can be no denying that there was opposition even from the Muslims at the time to the idea of a separate state, however, political statements and what counts during voting are two rather separate concepts. If Muslims wanted a separate Islamic State and voted overwhelmingly in its favour, why did so many Muslims stay back? The obvious argument that is presented, sans facts, to counter the overwhelming support for the creation of Pakistan is that if most Muslims at the time supported the two-nation theory, then why did so many Muslims stay back. And if they indeed did stay back, it only means that they rejected the two-nation theory. To understand the complete context, we will need to travel back in history a little. After partition, several leaders were in support of the full exchange of population, including leaders like BR Ambedkar. In his book on Partition, Ambedkar clearly outlines how and why he was in favour of a full population exchange between India and Pakistan, which would essentially mean that all Hindus and other religious factions other than Muslims would come back to India and all Muslims from India would go to Pakistan. In fact, he had even written a basic framework on how the issues arising out of full population exchange could be dealt with. Sardar Patel had, even after the partition spoken extensively about how Muslims had helped create Pakistan. His famous quote from his speech in Kolkata, 1948, bears testament to the fact. He had said , “Most of the Muslims who have stayed back in Hindustan, helped in creating Pakistan. Now, I don’t understand what has changed in one night that they are asking us not to doubt their loyalty”. Further, one has to remember that the demand for full population exchange was supported by several stalwarts at the time. A report in Sunday Guardian says, “Dr Mookerjee, accompanied by Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, went to plead with Gandhi for agreeing to Jinnah’s proposal for an exchange of population, the old man’s flat reply was that partition was on a territorial basis and not on religious grounds. Hence, no question of exchanging Hindus from Pakistan with Muslims from India. This was when the division was exclusively on the criterion of religion, Hindu and Muslim”. Further, After the partition, which was squarely based on religious lines owing to the demands of Jinnah, widespread riots had broken out in India and the newly formed Pakistan. The non-Muslim citizenry who were in Pakistan started making their way to India and the Muslim citizens in India started making their way to Pakistan. The migration is well documented and proven. In 1950, an accord was signed between Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan where each side pledged to secure its minorities and give equality of citizenship regardless of religion. Both sides promised to help recover looted property, assist in the recovery of abducted women and not recognise conversions made during communal disturbances. Essentially, Jawaharlal Nehru scuttled the de facto population exchange with the 1950 Accord. After the Accord was signed, Muslims, who had left West Bengal, returned and Nehru ensured that their property was restored to them. However, the travesties heaped on the Hindus continue to this day, unabated in Islamic Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Quoting a report from Daily Pioneer: Syama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Cabinet on April 1, 1950, in protest against Nehru’s failure to take Pakistan to task for the continued suffering of his people. At a Cabinet meeting the same day, Mukherjee said, “What do you care for us Bengali Hindus? What do you care for the criminal assaults on our women?” (Soundings in Modern South Asian History, ed. DA Low) Enraged at the renewed exodus of Hindus, which he viewed as deliberate, he suggested an exchange of populations, which Nehru rejected vehemently. Nehru, in his communication to the then West Bengal Chief Minister, had further said (as quoted in the DailyPioneer report): “I have been quite certain right from the beginning that everything should be done to prevent Hindus in east Bengal from migrating to West Bengal…I think the Hindu leaders of East Bengal, who have come away, have done no service to their people. If as you suggest things have gone too far already, then naturally, we shall all do what we can but I shudder at the prospect and the magnitude of the human misery that will come in its train. To the last, I shall try to check migration even if there is war”. Jawaharlal Nehru was thus, quite vehemently against population exchange and was, in fact, willing to fight a war to ensure that persecuted Hindus are not allowed to migrate back to India. The Bihar conundrum A strange argument that was furthered in the Huffington Post article also cited Bihar as an example saying that the drop in population in Bihar was a mere 2% between 1941 and 1951. Citing this example, the author says that this could not be called a “mass exodus” and hence, even if all the people who voted for the creation of Pakistan left, it stands to prove that those who stayed back did not essentially agree with the decision. This argument would be rather hilarious if weren’t so woefully uninformed. The interesting assumption made by the author here is that at the time, it was a free flow of people between Pakistan and India. Much like now, people could simply book their tickets via trains or flights and simply shift to the country of their preference at will. And hence, the ones who stayed back did stay back because they chose to be here. It simply assumes that it was a conscious decision. What the article does not specify, is that from zero seats in 1937, the Muslim League won 34 out of 40 seats in Bihar in 1946 after the political demand for Pakistan was formalised. The fact remains that complete exchange of population, as discussed earlier in this article, was not exactly a proposition that was supported by the two people who were in the position to make most such decisions at the time – Jawaharlal Nehru and MK Gandhi. In fact, Nehru and Gandhi were explicitly against the idea even at the insistence of stalwarts like Ambedkar. By 1950, the Pact was signed and thus, there was hardly any facility that was actively provided by the state for a population exchange. Add to that, widespread riots had also broken out in the countries. Perhaps the reason that far more Muslims managed to make their way from Punjab to Pakistan as compared to Bihar is the greatest proof of the logistical nightmare that people who wanted to travel to the ‘other country’ faced. Therefore, to simply assume that Muslims stayed back in India at will, is a fallacy that has long been propagated by malicious elements such as the author of the Huffington Post article. The argument of suffrage: ‘Those who voted for Pakistan did not represent Indian Muslims’ When facts presented are overwhelming, the intelligentsia that wishes to defend the indefensible often resorts to a strawman argument. One of those arguments were made in the Huffington Post by one Rupa Subramanya. The argument made essentially said that “1946 elections, based on the Sixth Schedule of the1935 Government of India Act, had a limited franchise, which means that only a small percentage of adults—those with money and property—were eligible to vote”. Essentially, the argument depends on the principles of suffrage saying that since only a percentage of people had the right to vote, the overwhelming support for the creation of Pakistan was not representative of the common Muslim sentiment. In fact, it goes a step further to quote “anecdotal evidence” to counter the actual evidence. The article says, “Anecdotally, there are many stories of upper-middle-class and upper-class Indian Muslims, including erstwhile princes, who decamped for Pakistan in 1947 to land up in senior positions in the government, military, and corporate sectors. Such people, whom one might charitably call carpetbaggers, voted with their feet and chose Pakistan”. Depending on “anecdotal evidence” to counter numbers is a straw man that is often used by those who wish to lodge their names in the Liberal roster. However, the straw man argument itself, when extended, hardly represents the truth. To provide further “proof” of this strawman argument, Rupa in Huffington Post extends the argument to Nehru and Congress. She says that Nehru himself was an elitist and hence, did not represent the entire Indian community due to limited suffrage. In fact, she even blames the new age critics of Congress and therefore, Nehru saying that most of the new age critics essentially say that they were elitist and did not represent the interest of wishes of The Hindu community at large back then, and if that argument holds true, it also has to be true that the Muslim League did not represent to wishes of the Muslim population for the same reasons (limited suffrage). This argument is deeply flawed, to say the least. If one extends the limited suffrage argument, then one will have to almost concede that there was no freedom struggle in India, to begin with, or that at least the struggle may not have had the consensus of the masses. The struggle itself was not put to vote and certainly, did not take the collective consensus of the masses by any electoral method. Is that to say that the freedom struggle had no universal acceptance? Further, the argument being extended to Congress is also deeply flawed. Even the staunchest critics of Congress do not say that they did not have popular consensus or were acting in a manner that did not have the will of the people included. The criticism has always revolved around how the people, Hindus specifically, were misled by Congress and by extension, by Nehru into believing principles that were against the very basics of Hinduism or even what India was meant to stand for. That the interests of Hindus were compromised is a fact. But it is also a fact that Hindus did support Congress. The criticism is about how the people were fooled by him to toe their line to their own detriment. Talking about Nehru in isolation to say that Nehru did not have consensus of the people, for the purpose of this argument is flawed too. While Nehru certainly needed the help of MK Gandhi to be catapulted to his political position, it also needs to be understood that at the time, it was not a presidential election that would hinge on the personality himself. It was about the idea that was being presented by the party – Congress, and the idea being presented by the Muslim League. That we criticise those very ideas and how the leaders of Congress fooled the people at the time is a separate debate, however, one cannot possibly argue that the consensus at the time was not with Congress by any means. This strawman argument can be extended to suit ones narrative as much as one wants. For example, in today’s day and age, this same argument is used to discredit the election of PM Narendra Modi even when universal suffrage is granted. Often, one hears Leftists say that PM Modi was only elected by 33% of the population and hence, he is not the representative voice of the people. This argument truly has no end. However, even at the time of limited suffrage, the limited voting rights given to Muslims were the exact same limited rights given to Hindus. However, it was not the Hindus demanding a separate state or even asking for separate electoral rights for Hindus and Muslims during the time. It was Pocker Sahib Bahadur, Muslim member from Madras who had moved the following amendment after the partition of India: “That on a consideration of the report of the Advisory Committee on minorities, fundamental right etc., on minority rights this meeting of the Constituent Assembly resolves that all elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures should, as far as Muslims are concerned, be held on the basis of separate electorates”. Sardar Patel at the time had given a scathing speech that decimated the premise of this. He repeatedly argued that it was the Muslims who spearheaded the demand for Pakistan and now that they got their demand, they want to divide India on the basis of religion. Patel made remarks questioning the forked tongue of the Muslims at the time too, saying that sweet words will not compensate for actions. While this proposition was rejected after a heated debate in the constituent assembly, it was, in fact, a widely popular suggestion in the Muslim community and Patel’s remarks during the debate also stand testament to that fact. The existence and formation of IUML proves that the Muslims who stayed back in India had no special allegiance towards India Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), which claims to be born after Indian Independence in 1948, is actually an off-shoot of Pakistan founder and Islamist Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s All India Muslim League (AIML). The All India Muslim League was succeeded by the Muslim League in Pakistan and the Indian Union Muslim League in India. In its website, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) claims that its motto is secularism and communal harmony but has often openly indulged in carrying out those objectives which are contrary to its own motto. The Muslim League had strongly advocated for the establishment of a separate Muslim-majority nation-state, Pakistan successfully led to the partition of British India in 1947 by the British Empire. The birth of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in December 1947 was a part of that intention to keep these spirit of the All India Muslim League. Muhammad Ismail, the first President of the Indian Union Muslim League after it split up from the Jinnah’s Muslim League, had actively participated in the partition movement of the country and was an ardent supporter of the creation of Pakistan. Interestingly, Muhammad Ismail, who claimed IUML was a secular outfit had, in fact, supported the retaining of Sharia law for Indian Muslims in the Constituent Assembly after India’s independence. Mohammad Ismail, the founder President of IUML, the first political party of Muslims in the new state of India even bargained with Congress to “recognise the League as the sole representative of Muslims”, similar to the policies of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had always asserted he and his party AIML was the sole representative of the Muslims in undivided India. In fact, it is widely accepted that IUML was formed on the advice of Jinnah just before he left the country post partition. According to historians, Jinnah had even said that “There must be a Muslim league in Hindustan”. The AIML had also observed that the protection of minorities in India depended upon the strength of Pakistan and had promised that they “would do all to protect them”. Essentially, while the Muslims who could travel to Pakistan went to the “promised land of the pure” and the ones who did not, reposed their faith largely in IUML and allied organisations that essentially were created to ensure that Jinnah’s vision in India was preserved. How then can it be argued that those who stayed back in India post-partition did so by some lofty idea of allegiance to India and the Indian ethos? How then can it be said, time and time again, that the Muslims who stayed back in India at the time rejected the concept of the two-nation theory? Conclusion Every factual argument and statistic points to the fact that Muslims who stayed back in India, did not primarily do so out of their innate love for mother India. At least a vast majority of them did not. There are exceptions, however, those exceptions cannot be used to make generic arguments. The ones who further this strawman argument essentially aim to tell the world that the Muslims who stayed back in India are not as “radical” as the ones who chose to move to Pakistan or even fought for the creation of an Islamic nation. Even if we keep all the historical evidence aside, how would the proponents of this theory explain the exponential rise in radicalism and the unwavering faith in the ideology of Jinnah amongst the Indian Muslims? One cannot argue that radical Islam and the propensity towards Jinnah has only increased over the years. One recalls the Jinnah Waali Azadi slogans and the calls to break India up yet again. One also remembers the ruckus that was created over one portrait of Jinnah in AMU. And if that is not enough, one recalls the innumerable riots that were initiated by Muslims against the Hindu majority of India. Essentially, 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. This explanation will also have to be plausible and not depend on strawman arguments like the ones in the Huffington Post and other emotional outbursts that form the basis of the propaganda by Islamists and their allies. Nobody denies the existence of good Muslims. Nobody can ever say with certainty that there are no Muslims in India who still pledge allegiance to the sacred soil of India. Who genuinely embrace Hindu ethos while being Muslims. After all, we have had stalwarts like Dr APJ Kalam and KK Mohammad, who was an integral part of Hindus reclaiming their Ram Mandir legally. However, exceptions are just that – exceptions. They cannot be used to discredit the norm. Facts cannot be brushed under the carpet with emotional wails and the truth cannot be buried with strawman arguments – not forever, anyway, and certainly not with the sole purpose of making Hindus feel perennially guilty.

‘Islamophobia’ does not exist: It’s time to push for this ‘politically incorrect’ reality 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. Nupur J Sharma 14 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Protests against Nupur Sharma in India (Image credit: Al Jazeera) At the very core of humanity, is a war to survive. It is a paradigm that no animal or man can escape. The civilisational war we see today may be dressed up differently depending on the issue we choose to debate – reclamation of cultural heritage and places of worship, judicial reforms, police reforms, demographic challenge, citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the law against forceful religious conversion and the list is endless – however, at the very heart of it, every issue revolves around the survival of an ancient civilisation that has now morphed into a “secular” quip or a people, who have fought, for centuries, for the preservation of that ancient civilisation. When Rangeela Rasool was published by Mahashay Rajpal, the court had clearly exonerated him saying that commentary on historical figures, including Prophet, does not promote enmity between groups. That, however, did not stop the Islamists from murdering him brutally. It was also craftily brushed under the rug that Mahashay Rajpal had published Rangeela Rasool (written by Pandit Chamupati Lal) after serious provocation by the Muslim community where they chose to publish two books mocking Hindus and their faith. In this case, Mahashay Rajpal and Pandit Chamupati Lal chose to answer words with words. Book with a book. However, for the Islamists who constantly want special treatment and concessions from the Hindu community, that was “blasphemy”, a crime punishable by death under Sharia. The trajectory of the Nupur Sharma case was not too different. After the discovery of the Shivling, Islamists on television debates and social media started mocking Hindus and their faith. They called Hindus penis worshippers and far worse. During the TimesNow debate, when panellists started mocking the Hindu faith yet again by calling the Shivling a fountain, Nupur had had enough. She lashed out asking the Islamist panellist how he would feel if she was to mock their faith. She did not mock him per se – she asked how he would feel. And boy did the Islamists answer. They took to the streets, shouted ‘sar tan se juda’ slogans, pissed on her picture, hung her effigies and did everything that one expects from uneducated barbarians. So far, Nupur Sharma is safe. Alive. However, one has to reconcile with the fact that she is a woman marked for life. Wouldn’t take much for us to reconcile with it, sadly. That is just how the human race is. An atrocity that shocked us yesterday would become the norm tomorrow. The Hindu memory is painfully short and soon, the community would move on to the next outrage cycle leaving Nupur Sharma alone to deal with the consequences of bruising the extremely fragile sentiments of the Islamists. One would expect the Nupur Sharma issue to be one that united the Left and the Right (for the lack of a better phrase) in India. After all, it is the Left and the Liberals who claim that India is stifling freedom of speech and expression. They also rally vociferously for the right to offend and the right to criticise religion – we saw that in several cases – Munnawar Farooqi being a case in point. The Right, let us assume, would speak up because Nupur Sharma commented on Islam specifically, a religion they allegedly despise, but the Left would speak up for Nupur’s right to speech, therefore, uniting the two factions. That did not happen. Instead, there were cries about Hindus becoming increasingly hateful under the Modi regime, atrocities against Muslims being on the rise and general wails of Islamophobia that we have heard all too often. Pakistan approached the United Nations demanding action against India due to Nupur Sharma’s “Islamophobic comments”. Bhutto demanded that the UN take note of “rising Islamophobia” in India. Attempting to arm-twist the UN further, Bilawal Bhutto reportedly said, “Silence could be taken as complicity and could lead to further incitement to violence, communal discord and hate incidents”. Essentially, Pakistan told the UN that if it does not get involved and chastise a nation of 1.3 billion people because one woman politician went on a TV debate and made a 10-second innocuous comment that repeated what the Islamic hadiths say, Hindus would get emboldened to exercise their free speech further and incite the Muslims to riot and indulge in violence. If you find something fundamentally flawed in that argument, where 1.3 billion people need to be condemned for a factually correct statement by one person so that the tolerant, peace-loving, sar tan se juda chanting, stone-pelting and rioting Islamists do not indulge in violence, you are an Islamophobe. We live in an age where any criticism of Islam or even a comment on the collective behaviour of the Ummah based on facts is seen as Islamophobia. If you report a crime committed by Islamic fundamentalists with a clear religious motive, like conversion, it is Islamophobia. If you condemn the violence that the intolerant minority indulges in, it is Islamophobia. In this case, Nupur’s response to Hinduphobes was Islamophobia and the Hindu community’s condemnation of rape, death and beheading threats to Nupur Sharma was also Islamophobia – they are just upset about the comment, after all. A little anarchy is justified. A little violence is a part of the democratic process, it was said – the state must allow it. If you disagree with this asinine view, you, my friend, are an Islamophobe. So what is Islamophobia? The United States House of Representatives in December passed a bill called ‘Combating International Islamophobia Act’. It was introduced by famed Jihad supporter, Ilhan Omar. The bill aims to combat global Islamophobia. The bill allows the Department of State to establish an office to monitor and combat Islamophobia and address related issues and of course, it requires the submission of annual reports to Congress about global Islamophobia and what countries have done to act against it. The vague, subjective law allows all speech directed at Islam, forget criticising it, to be termed as Islamophobic – a term that in itself is problematic on several levels. A phobia, by its very definition, is an irrational fear. Islamophobia, essentially means, that anybody who comments negatively against Islam has an irrational fear of Muslims and Islam similar to that of xenophobia or racism. Firstly, it is rather hilarious that a bunch of converts believe that they are a separate race. But beyond that, to accept absolutely anything as “Islamophobia”, we need to evaluate if the fear of Islam or that of the Ummah is one that is irrational, to begin with. According to the UN definition, Islamophobia refers to irrational hostility and fear toward Islam, and therefore aversion and fear toward Muslims or the majority of them. It also refers to the practical consequences of such hostility in the form of discrimination, unequal treatment toward Muslims (individuals and communities) and their exclusion from the main political and social agenda. Let us break this down. The first defining characteristic of Islamophobia is that the fear and/or hostility has to be ‘irrational’. The predominant fear against Islam is that it treats non-Muslims as sub-humans and believes in waging Jihad against those who don’t follow Islam. That Jihad is violent and humiliating. They believe in converting non-Muslims by force and have indulged in several genocides of non-Muslims in the name of Islam. These are all factual statements. We have seen the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jaish e Mohammad, Lashkar e Toiba, Hamas, Al Shabab, Hizballah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Lashkar e Jhangvi, Boko Haraam etc and the common aim of all of these Islamic organisations that have been designated as terror organisations, is to establish an Islamic Caliphate. India, specifically, has seen Islamic terrorism perhaps far more than any other nation in the world. Even if we move past the Mughal invasions, the Khilafat movement and the Malabar genocide of Hindus itself is an examples of how Muslims executed Hindus in a concerted manner because they had sworn their allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate. We have seen grooming gangs in the UK, grooming jihad in India, Taharrush in Egypt, Germany, the UK and other places like Pakistan, genocides across the world and sporadic incidents of violence directed at non-Muslims from Sweden, to Africa, the US, UK, Germany, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and everywhere else where a substantial Muslim population exists. The go-to reason to brand such basic facts as “Islamophobic” is to claim that none of this is the true representation of Islam. An erstwhile Muslim, Waseem Rizvi, had once gone to court with a list of Quranic verses that directed violence towards Kafirs. Here are some of them: 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 4 (An-Nisa) Verse 56: Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise. Verse 89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away [i.e., refuse], then seize them and kill them [for their betrayal] wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper, Verse 101: And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer,1 [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.2 Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy. This is a short indicative list. The full list of 26 verses listed by Waseem Rizvi can be read here . Therefore, the argument that it does not represent Islam is certainly not an accurate one. Let us, for a moment, assume that none of this represents Islam and it is indeed a peaceful religion that wishes nothing more than peaceful coexistence. Given that assumption, one has to then ask the question of why so many factions of the Muslim community take to terrorism and overall violence against non-Muslims. Who are those thousands and lakhs of Muslims who have, in India, taken to the streets to demand the beheading of Nupur Sharma? Are they not Muslims and do their wishes not adhere to true Islam? I am no Maulana and these are questions that the Muslim community has to answer. Given this, and the fact that their conduct has been similar throughout the world, can we really blame someone for being scared of Islam and can we, logically, call that fear irrational? For most living organisms, anything that threatens their right to exist would be deemed an enemy. Nobody in their right mind can say that all Muslims are the enemy, however, their fear that Islam threatens their existence is not misplaced, given the mountain of evidence and the trail of blood that stand as a witness. In fact, the term Islamophobia itself reveals the true intent of the Muslim Brotherhood in coining and furthering this term. Islam as a religion has to be open to criticism and it is completely rational to be scared of certain aspects of Islam, as detailed above. One may want to fight “Muslimphobia” and if that is the aim, the phrase used has to be that and not Islamophobia. When one shuts down all criticism of Islam and even deems quoting the Hadiths as blasphemy, one can safely argue that it is not the non-Muslim who is Islamophobic but those taken offence who are truly Islamophobic since they have a fundamental problem with their own texts being quoted. Frankly, one suspects, that the Muslim community themselves don’t believe that these facts are “Islamophobic”. This term, which was popularised by the widely fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, was only a tool to ensure that all comments and criticism of Islam is stifled. It was a tool to scare people into submission and exploit the innate goodness in the world that makes people not want to hurt the sentiments of others, overall. It is a mythical beast that has been peddled with influence and money to ensure that the atrocities of the Islamists get shielded by piggy-backing on the victims of real atrocities – those who have been discriminated against because of their colour, race or worse, religion (Hindus and Jews come to mind). If the Muslim community believes that the terrorists, stone pelters, those demanding Nupur Sharma’s beheading etc do not follow “real Islam”, they need to give the world a reason to trust them and explain the parts of their faith that propagate violence. If they think it is a part of Islam, they need to evolve and summarily denounce the last stone pelter and hardliner on the streets. Failing this, 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.