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 India: A land with Hindu consciousness, which will forever be a natural home for Hindus 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 Nupur J Sharma 10 September 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Ever since the 2014 elections, India has experienced a sea change not just attitudinally, but also in terms of the policy. One of the policy decisions that aims to right a historic wrong is the Citizenship Amendment Bill. In 2016, the Modi government tabled the Citizenship Amendment Bill that aimed to cleanse the country of illegal immigration. The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2016, seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 to provide citizenship to illegal migrants, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian extraction. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The foundation for the citizenship amendment bill is rather simple – India is a natural home for persecuted Hindus, Buddhists and Jains from neighbouring Islamic countries. Essentially, all people belonging to non-Islamic religions should see India as their natural home. The objection that the Left raised was rather a simple (and expected) one as well – why are Muslims being left out when all others are being given the chance to become Indian citizens. An example of the outrage that is expressed by the Left is journalist Rajdeep Sardesai voicing his concerns during an interview with website Lallantop. An incensed Rajdeep spoke at length about how we are moving towards Jinnah’s India and how the Citizenship Amendment Bill should have a human element in it. He also spoke about how the Hindu refugees in India are political refugees and not those persecuted on religious lines. Before we go into the details of Rajdeep’s assertion that Hindu refugees are merely economic refugees and not ones borne out of religious persecution, it becomes essential to examine why the Citizenship Amendment Bill is bang on target and why India has to be considered the naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. Dominant religions of the world According to theregistere.co.uk, nearly 75% of the world’s population practices one of the five most influential religions of the world: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. To quote from the report, “Christianity and Islam are the two religions most widely spread across the world. These two religions together cover the religious affiliation of more than half of the world’s population”. if one sees the world map at a glance, the dominant religions, country-wise, draws a rather obvious picture. Country-wise majority religions. Source: pbslearningmedia.org (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) The interactive map by PBS visually displays the countries of the world and the dominant religions in those countries. While the extent of the spread of Christianity is evident by the ocean of purple, Hinduism and Islam deserve a closer look. The interactive map can be used to see the spread of Hinduism and Islam. From the map, one can see that there are only 2 countries in the world that have a Hindu majority population today. India and Nepal. There is not one country where the Hindu population is between 40% to 70% and most other countries where there is a remote presence of Hinduism ranges between 1% and 10% of the population. In India’s neighbouring countries, Pakistan, according to this map, has a Hindu population of 1.9%, which some may believe is an exaggerated number in itself, Bangladesh has a Hindu population of 9.1%, Myanmar of 1.7% and Bhutan of 22.6%. Map showing Muslim population % (OpIndia doesn’t endorse the map of India depicted here, it has been used only to show the religious demographics of the world) Above is the map that visually displays the number of Islamic countries or countries with a Muslim majority in the world. According to the Pew Research Center in 2015, there were 50 Muslim-majority countries. Worldatlas.com (April 2017) identified 45 ‘Islamic countries’. Among the Islamic states are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Oman, and Yemen. Other states where Islam is the politically defined state religion are Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Somalia and Brunei. Other Muslim-majority countries include: Niger, Indonesia, Sudan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Senegal, Syria, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. According to a 2010 study and released in January 2011, Jones (2005) defines a “large minority” as being between 30% and 50%, which described nine countries in 2000, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Islam has 1.5 billion adherents, making up c. 22% of the world population. The argument about India being a naturalised home for Hindus stems first and foremost from the demography of the world. As is evident, India and Nepal are the only two countries in the world where Hindus are the majority population. With Nepal being a rather small country, the onus to be the naturalised home for Hindus falls on India, and rightly so. With 50 Muslims Majority countries and the entire world painted purple as is evident from the world demography map shared, there is no other country in the world that can be called their own other than India. India a ‘secular’ state? The obvious counter to this argument by the Left is that India is a ‘secular’ nation with no state religion. The concept of ‘secular’ was inserted in the Constitution only at a much later date by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It was after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1976 that the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular country. It is thus fair to assume that the makers of the Constitution did not envisage India as a secular state, to begin with. Moreover, even if accept that India is a ‘secular’ state by virtue of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, that would only mean that India does not have a State religion. As Pakistan is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, India, is not a Hindu state where the state religion is Hinduism. For the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, that still does not take away from the fact that by virtue of demography, India will remain a naturalised home for persecuted Hindus. It is often the wont of the Left that they tend to recognise the existence of India from the moment of its political freedom. They recognise the Indian State as having come into existence only after the political boundaries were drawn in 1947. However, Bharat exists for as long as civilisation has existed. The consciousness of Bharat does not exist from the moment political boundaries were drawn. The sacred land as described by our scriptures is India. This land is the mother of our entire existence. All our heroes, our greatest stories, our greatest accomplishments, our entire history basically, happened in this piece of land. India’s consciousness will, forever, remain Hindu. 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. Does this mean Indian Muslims are not just as Indian as the Hindus? Certainly not. However, the very cultural and existential foundation of India has been and shall forever remain Hindu even if the Indian State has no State religion constitutionally speaking. The Nehruvian Blunder 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 DailyPioneer: 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. While since the time of Nehru, Hindus were disallowed from migrating to their natural homeland, India, despite persecution, the influx of Muslim illegals continued un-checked. If today, the Citizenship Amendment Bill seeks to right that historic wrong that, in the name of ‘secularism’, sacrificed Hindus at the altar of Islamic Jihad, the Left must introspect why it is vehemently against the move in the very name of secularism. One has to ask at this point, where else are Hindus supposed to go if not India. The double standards of the Left While the Left has vehemently opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill in the name of secularism, in the very name of secularism have rallied behind Rohingya illegals and demanded that the Indian State accept the influx from Myanmar. The Left has demanded that on humanitarian ground, India should accept Rohingya Muslims as refugees in India. India has, in its part, repeatedly asserted that firstly, India has no legal obligation to accept international refugees and secondly, Rohingya Muslims pose a security threat to India. It is thus intriguing that while the Left does not recognise India as the natural home for Hindus, the only country in the world apart from tiny Nepal that has a Hindu majority, it is insistent that India strain itself by accepting Muslim refugees who pose a security threat. Interestingly, even Saudi Arabia, the country which is considered to be the birthing place of Islam, has also deported hundreds of Rohingya Muslims from the country. Al Jazeera had reported that hundreds, who had outlived their visa had been put in detention camps and deported. The ones who resisted were handcuffed and deported. In fact, some who had lived there for their entire lives were also deported from the country when the police found that they did not have adequate documents. This begs two important questions: 1. If the Left is so concerned about the dignity of Human Life as it claims to be, then how is it that they have a problem with India accepting Hindus, Sikhs and even Christians persecuted in neighbouring Islamic countries? 2. How is it that the Left heart beats only for Muslim refugees whom even the Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia are not accepting? The ‘secular country’ bunkum that is furthered by the Left is used to browbeat India into accepting Muslim refugees when over 50 Islamic countries are not coming forth to help them. The narrative is also used to ensure that India forgets its Hindu consciousness thereby following Nehru’s path to abandon the Hindus who are regularly persecuted in Islamic Nations. As discussed earlier, the argument of ‘secular country’ can only be limited to the political Indian State not having a State religion, however, the argument can in no way be used to erase the Hindu foundation and consciousness of the country. The fact of the matter is that Islamic Nations are violent towards ‘Kaafir religions’. It a fact that can no longer be glossed over with mere rhetoric. With India, being a large ‘Kaafir nation’ surrounded by Islamic nations that seek to annihilate it, one has to ask oneself honestly how well the ethos of ‘secularism’ will serve the interest of the nation. For the purpose of this argument, I will club Jawaharlal Nehru with the Left as well. While he was vehemently against the Hindu population of East Bengal coming into West Bengal, he firstly did nothing to arrest the influx of Muslim illegals. Secondly, with the 1950 Accord, he scuttled the full exchange of population that could have taken care of the woes of India that it is diseased with today. This is not to say that Muslim citizens of India should ‘go to Pakistan’, an argument often used by the Left to show the non-Left as anti-Muslims. However, the fact does remain that a full transfer of population between India and Pakistan was the only logical step when a nation was carved out of India on the basis of Islam. The Muslims who stayed back often like to cite that as an excuse to whitewash the crimes of the Muslim community in India. However, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is a testament to the fact that while several Muslims stayed back, the full population exchange was scuttled by Nehru and several of them are certainly loyal to India, the Ummah does reign supreme with a large section of Muslims. 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 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, which 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 part of that intention to keep the spirit of the All India Muslim League alive. 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. Thus, while a large section of the Muslim population in India still does advocate for Sharia and vehemently supports Pakistan owing to its Islamic foundation, Hindus have no home to truly call their own because of tenets of ‘secularism’. While a portion of the Muslim population still bats for Pakistan, Hindus have one land that they can call their own, that have them as the majority. The fact remains that India’s foundation is Hindu and when that is acknowledged, it would in no way mean that Minorities don’t get their rights since a Hindu Nation would not function as an Islamic nation that has the concept of Kaafirs. In such a scenario, one has to concede that while the change from ‘secularism’ to ‘Hindu nation’ would take years if not decades, at least for the purpose of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, India is and always will be the natural home for all Hindus. Just like Israel is considered the natural home for Jews or any one of the 50 Islamic Nations should be considered the natural home for Muslims. Conclusion The arguments against India being the natural home for Hindus are mostly based on facetious arguments. That India is a ‘secular’ country, that it goes against the ethos of humanity and often, scriptures quoted out of context to assert that Hinduism itself talks about embracing everyone. Other arguments against the Citizenship Amendment Bill talk about why Ahmadiyyas, who are also persecuted in Islamic countries are not a part of the section of people who deserve asylum. The last argument has an explanation, albeit, a rather harsh one. Muslim Nations often persecute certain sections of the Muslim community because they claim that certain sects are not following the ‘true’ version of Islam. Hindus, cannot be held responsible for the internal troubles of the Muslim world. That is something that the Muslim world needs to reform to tackle all on its own. 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. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity.

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.

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. 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.

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 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.

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 greatest achievement of Hindus in the past 7 years: Shifting the Overton Window 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. Nupur J Sharma 9 November 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] In 2016, a year before I had joined OpIndia as their editor, I read an interesting article on the ‘MyVoice’ section of the website. It is essentially a corner of the internet where users can express themselves but OpIndia does not wholly endorse the opinions expressed thereof. The article was headlined, “Why I will celebrate the destruction of the Babri structure on 6th December”. I was agape at the audacity – pleasantly surprised. One has to realise how Hindus simply did not have the audacity to express their joy at the events of 6th December 1992. Babri was the outward anathema of our collective conscience. We were forced to be ashamed even if we secretly rejoiced Hindus finally reclaiming a piece of their heritage. I grew up in a house where my grandfather and father expressed insurmountable joy at the illegal structure being demolished. They fervently believed that Hindus were forced to take matters into their own hands because the secular state subjugated Hindus and chose to ignore their 500-year-old battle to reclaim the very spot where their Bhagwan Ram was born. It was a great source of pain that the State had forced Ram Lalla to live in a rickety tent. It was a great source of rage that in our own land, we could not truly express what we wanted , as a people. It was April 2019 when I truly realise how far we had come. I had been working with OpIndia for over 2 years when politicians made a controversy out of a sentiment that several Hindus like me secretly felt. Chanting “ Ram rashtra hain, rashtra Ram hain “, Sadhvi Pragya declared that she was proud of taking part in the demolition of the illegal structure called Babri Masjid that once stood on Ram Janmabhoomi. A litany of abuse followed, not just from Muslims but from politicians who had made a career out of holding Hindus by their hair and rubbing their nose on the ground, breaking their pride, hacking their self-respect. My colleagues and I were upset, enraged even. We decided, then to throw caution to the wind. The article I had read in 2016, sitting in my cosy office space had to be mainstreamed. As disparate people who had come together simply because we were sick of the media’s political correctness and literary subjugation of Hindus, we had to speak up. We published the article on main OpIndia website on 21st of April 2019. Babri Masjid Demolition – why people can be proud of it. It was out there. “Babri structure was a symbol of that tyranny and barbarism”, the article said. “I celebrate the destruction of that symbol. I celebrate the annihilation of brutality. I celebrate the restoration of equality. I celebrate 6th December. I celebrate self-respect. I celebrate freedom”, the author declared. I don’t think a lot of people realise the gravity of the decision to publish this article on OpIndia. Over the years, we as a people had been conditioned to edit our opinions to be commensurate with the imposed norms of political correctness. There had been renegades like Sita Ram Goel, Arun Shourie (before we lost him to the dark side), Ram Swarup and many others, but for the average unwashed masses, opinions inconvenient to the establishment were taboo. In our mind, we risked being ostracised by our social circles and probably booked by the secular state for daring to endorse the destruction of a symbol of Muslim oppression and tyranny. But that did not happen. While we feared friendly recoil, we were hailed for publishing an article that verbalised the sentiment of the people. Being the voice of those who could not voice these opinions themselves. The Overton Window had shifted. Forever. The Overton Window is a set of ideas and policies which are acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. The spectrum of acceptability ranges from what the society deems “unacceptable” to what set of ideas eventually becomes a government policy acceptable to the mainstream population. Joshua Treviño has postulated that the six degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly: Unthinkable Radical Acceptable Sensible Popular Policy 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. The idea that the head of the state would proudly participate in the Bhoomi Pujan of Ram Mandir was “unthinkable” given that most of us in our 30s today had observed politics since the time the government in power went to the Supreme Court denying Bhagwan Ram’s existence. Interestingly, after the Supreme Court, on this very day in 2019, had ordered in favour of Hindus, Congress had come supporting the construction of Ram Mandir, though in muted tones. What was unthinkable then, became political policy now. The ripple effect of a some-what, tangentially Hindu centric party being in power has been subtle and driven by the masses far more than the government itself directly. What was taboo then, is mainstream now. We went from “Godse was a Hindu terrorist” to “Godse was a murderer, but there is no harm in saying he was a nationalist”. The challenge is to turn the shift in Overton Window into policy, which in this case, would be getting the government to declassify his last testimony in court. We went from saying that the demolition of Babri Masjid was a dark path on the syncretic culture of India to taking pride in Hindus reclaiming Bhagwan Ram’s Janmabhoomi. We went from wanting a hospital at Ram Janmabhoomi to wanting a Bhavya Ram Mandir and a pining to reclaim Kashi and Mathura. With the Overton Window shifting, the challenge now is to translate this to government policy, which would mean the removal of the Places of Worship Act. Subtly, taboos have been broken and what was once considered “unthinkable” or even “radical” has become “sensible” if not “popular”. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the Overton Window shifting is that it has been done purely by the masses – how it should be. Much like the 2020 and 2021 Diwali celebrations. While the Secular state banned firecrackers assuming that it is only a celebratory tradition, Hindus took to the streets, defying the ban, even getting arrested, lighting the sky so our ancestors could find their way back to their abode after the Mahalaya Paksha was over. While the Secular state made a policy thinking that the idea of the ban was mainstream, the people rose up in dissent, asserting that the Overton Window had long shifted and what they thought was mainstream was now obsolete. But perhaps, the most “unthinkable” idea was that of India being a land of Hindu consciousness. The acceptability of the propositions furthered by the Citizenship Amendment Bill was split in the middle. As is India’s wont, the ideological divide was as stark as a bright sunny summer morning. The Left opposed the provisions tooth and nail. The ‘idea of India’ that has long been touted as the existential foundation of India had been shaken, as per them, with one swift motion. The Left has long espoused the principle that India is an all-giving, all-embracing entity, especially when it comes to Muslims. Whether this special corner of the heart that bleeds only for Muslims is a result of political compulsions, the Gandhian dystopia or the engrained false persecution complex is unclear. Perhaps it is a culmination of all of the above. Either way, while the Left detested the idea of law finally being honest enough to give citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the non-Left rejoiced the decision as one that rights a historic wrong. The idea of the act was simply – 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. Hindus deserve a land they can come back to when the world seems too harsh, when their rights are denied and when they are persecuted because of their very identity. The only criticism of the Citizenship Amendment Act was perhaps the fact that it did go as far as to give Hindus a ‘right to return’, much like Israel gives to Jews. That would have been the truest establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra”. But CAA, even in its current form, was a policy borne out of the Hindus recognising the civilisational entity that is Bharat. Mainstreaming the idea that India is indeed a Hindu land. That idea then translated to policy. What was radical then, was policy now, albeit, one that fell short, but policy nonetheless. 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 Modi government being in power is sufficient for the Overton Window to shift. It is a government that is at the very least, if not proactively Hindu centric, tangentially so by being responsive to Hindu demands. How we create that demand is something Hindus need to decide. One must not have heard of Joseph Overton, but one has certainly heard of the chants of Jai Shree Ram in 2014. The chants of ‘Hind, Hindu, Hindutva’, ‘Mandir Wahi Banayenge’ and “Kashi Mathura Baaki hai”. One might not have heard of the Overton Window but one certainly remembers how we broke down, tears bedewed our cheeks when on 9th November 2019, the Supreme Court vindicated a battle Hindus had fought for 500 years. Hindus have not only shifted the Overton Window but shattered the glass, never to be implanted again.

Explore Nupur J Sharma’s insights on Bharatiya history, Civilisational issues the preservation of Hindu cultural identity. Civilisational Advocacy There is no better teacher than History in determining the future. History shows that progressively, a violent minority has strengthened the legislative, judicial and societal cover it gets to assert its religious supremacy aspirations. These aspirations are often negotiated after a violent, vehement and shameless assertion of street veto. While Hindus, bit by bit, cede to assuage the urge to cement the aspiration of religious supremacy, the Abrahamics harbor unbridled and unfettered hatred for their very existence, confirming to the prescriptions of the doctrines that they follow. 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. It took 100 years of low-level violence for thousands of Hindus to be systematically murdered. A strong, confident, sovereign Hindu India is perhaps the only thing that has the potential to stop the balkanisation of Bharat, A Hindu nation, built on Hindu ethos. 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 Play Video Play Video 01:19:22 OpIndia English Robert Spencer talks about the global menace of Jihad Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nineteen books and an authority on radical Islamism and the threat posed by Jihad Play Video Play Video 01:11:49 Navonmesh नवोन्मेष वैचारिक मंथन कार्यक्रम - श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी नवोन्मेष फाउंडेशन द्वारा आयोजित "वैचारिक मंथन" कार्यक्रम में उपस्थित हुए सैंकड़ों लोगों को श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी ने हिंदू धर्म में महिलाओं के अधिकार को लेकर किया संबोधित। #navonmesh #navonmeshjaipur #navonmeshjaipur2023 #नवोन्मेष #वैचारिक_मंथन #वैचारिक_मंथन_कार्यक्रम #hindutva #hinduecosystem Play Video Play Video 01:16:44 Sangam Talks Khilafat 2.0 | Nupur J Sharma | @OpIndiaHindi @OpIndiaEnglish | #SangamTalks Islamic barbarity and terrorism has subjugated Hindus for centuries. One of the greatest examples of tyranny was the Khilafat movement, made to restore the Turkish caliphate, with deeply Islamic overtones, was packaged as a “freedom struggle”. Today, we see the contours of Khilafat 2.0 yet again - movements aimed at Islamic supremacy and subjugation of Hindus packaged a “protests” against various legislations and leaders, much like the leaders of then, whitewashing the genocide and religious subjugation of Hindus. Abouth The Speaker: Nupur J Sharma is a management graduate from Symbiosis. After running her business for years, she decided to leave that behind. She has been the editor in chief of OpIndia for the past 5 years and her prime focus is documenting persecution of Hindus. She has published a fact-finding report on the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of 2020 which is available on Kindle. She has also done seminal work in documenting the persecution of Hindus across the globe. Articles: https://www.opindia.com/author/unsubtledesi/ Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019: An OpIndia Report : https://www.amazon.in/-/hi/Nupur-J-Sharma-ebook/dp/B08DNNWNXR/ Sub-Topics: 0:00 Power Statements 1:10 Barkha Dutt's 'Sheroes' Ladeeda Saklun (Jamia Milia Islamia) and Rana Ayyub's threat of Jihad to the Hindus of India 3:42 Ottoman empire's farman to Tipu Sultan and Indian Muslims participationg in 1857 freedom struggle, to cooperate with the British 6:19 Khilafat 1.0 in 1919 and Mahatma Gandhi's blind trust in Indian Muslims loyalty to Independence struggle 7:50 MK Gandhi clubbed the Jalianwala bagh massacre and Khilafat movement together as if they were same issues 9:40 Mappilah Muslims atrocities on Malabar Hindus go way back in mid 1840's (British records) 16:45 Faiyaz Tyabji chosen by Congress in 1921 to investigate if the Moplah massacre was an uprising or genocide 18:24 The 'Rangeela Rasool' controversy, Gandhi's support to Muslims, murder of Mahashay Rajpal Malhotra of Arya Samāj and passing of IPC 295A 22:07 Direct Action Day in 1946 - Jihad against Kāfirs in full flow and Gopal Patha's defense of Hindus 26:10 Noakhali genocide and the silence of Gandhi-Nehru 27:56 ISIS comes out with an India centric magazine calling for Jihad against Kafirs in Feb 2022 29:48 Adv Mehmood Paracha calling for arms license for Muslims in a mosque 30:05 PFI 2047 document and the deadly plan of Dalit+Muslim unity trope "Jai Bheem Jai Meem" 31:00 2019 Hauz Khasi (Delhi) Anti Hindu riots of 2019 and repetition of such events in India 38:15 Congress and other anti Hindu parties conduct and speeches during the anti-CAA protests 40:20 Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence 41:14 The disclosure statements of AAP MCD Councilor, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi will shock you to the core 44:00 'Sar tan se juda' beheadings and the Hijab controversy since beginning of 2022 and the Nupur Sharma case of Blasphemy (IPC295A) 48:30 Nothing called 'moderate Islam'. There is 'Ummah' or global Muslim Brotherhood - a real threat to humanity 52:51 Jinnah, Jihadis and PFI - All are Islamists waging Jihad against Kafirs 54:30 Barkha Dutt and other anti Hindu media persons 55:00 Threats that Hindus need to wake up to and do something about it Join our newsletter for getting updates on upcoming lectures: https://www.sangamtalks.com/subscribe Join our YouTube video channel for learning about new video releases: Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/sangamhindi English : https://www.youtube.com/c/SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH3afXBAYabOqTIi4uKFbZg Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJdh1RmnQIYnGERJ2jAFCA Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQERR3gS0PmEDHKUgCW9LA Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmqDkiFNgGs95D3g6mBcmg Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVssln7NCnwv88-UVMtNpw Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1a89nobV2ozUlFpDhp7QIw Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ehxDugiAxBxPLsZNTM_rQ For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Koo : https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate Play Video Play Video 01:06:44 OpIndia English The Places of Worship Act and how the reclaim Kashi, Mathura J Sai Deepak talks about the Places of Worship Act and how to reclaim Kashi and Mathura Play Video Play Video 16:23 Stop! HinduDvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor - Op India, speaks on Hindudvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor of OpIndia, speaking at the International Conference on UNDERSTANDING HINDUDVESHA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD, at the Constitution Club, Delhi, April 1, 2023 Play Video Play Video 01:01:48 Pondy Lit Fest Our Inexorable Laws Justice Jaichandren, Navdeep Singh, Sandhya Jain, Swati Goel Sharma, Nupur Sharma, J Sai Deepak (Chair) Play Video Play Video 03:13 SangamTalks TV Media History of Moplah riots against Hindus | Nupur J Sharma | #sangamshorts Main talk link: https://youtu.be/UFusz7PoOiE Talk title: Khilafat 2.0 Speaker: Nupur J Sharma Join our newsletter for getting updates on upcoming lectures: https://www.sangamtalks.com/subscribe Join our YouTube video channel for learning about new video releases: Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/sangamhindi English : https://www.youtube.com/c/SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH3afXBAYabOqTIi4uKFbZg Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJdh1RmnQIYnGERJ2jAFCA Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQERR3gS0PmEDHKUgCW9LA Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmqDkiFNgGs95D3g6mBcmg Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVssln7NCnwv88-UVMtNpw Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1a89nobV2ozUlFpDhp7QIw Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ehxDugiAxBxPLsZNTM_rQ For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Koo : https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate Play Video Play Video 22:34 OpIndia English Editor in Chief, Nupur J Sharma, talks on the anniversary of anti-Hindu Delhi Riots Nupur J Sharma talks on the anniversary of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots at an event organised by GIA (Group of Intellectuals and Academicians). Media Speech is power, speech is to persuade. This section featured select TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. Explore

'Reality Bytes' is a podcast series where the truth is not taboo. Hosted by Nupur J Sharma, the editor-in-chief of OpIndia. Podcast 'Reality Bytes' Interviews with Nupur J ... Play Video Play Video 02:26:38 BJP, Modi, supporters and dissent: A discussion on caste, politics, Hindutva, tradition and more In this conversation, OpIndia and UpWord collaborate to bring a scintillating conversation about the varied opinions on the Dharmic spectrum. The conversation touches upon difficult and sensitive subjects like caste, jati, worshipping politicians and political parties, BJP supporters self-censoring, tradition vs science, and more. Watch this discussion as Rahul Roushan, Ashish Dhar, Anand Ranganathan, and Nupur J Sharma agree, disagree, and vow to continue the discussion. 00:00:00 - Intro 00:00:47 - Why this conversation? 00:07:22 - Bigotry accusations on Anand 00:18:25 - Is Anand a Congress stooge? 00:25:32 - What does it mean to be a Modi supporter today? 00:31:44 - Political views evolve 00:38:42 - Censorship & cancel culture 00:51:56 - Hindu unity 00:53:06 - Caste politics 01:00:16 - Birth-based caste and Hindu society 01:12:55 - Science, Philosophy, and Hindu culture 01:30:13 - Inter-caste marriage 01:46:38 - Hindu tradition, justice and equality 01:53:02 - The narrative of caste atrocities 02:15:07 - Non-negotiables for Hindus Play Video Play Video 02:44:11 Fake ‘Hindu terror’ bogey: TRUTH about Dabholkar murder, conspiracy against Hindus & Sanatan Sanstha Narendra Dabholkar, the leader of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti and a supposed 'rationalist', was fatally shot in Pune on August 20, 2013. Almost immediately, Sanatan Sanstha, a Hindu organisation, was blamed for the murder. What followed a terribly botched-up investigation and a deep conspiracy to implicate Hindus and further the mythical Hindu terror bogey. In this podcast, Nupur J Sharma talks to Advocate Virendra Ichalkaranjikar, the lawyer representing the accused Hindus in the murder and Ramesh Shinde, the national spokesperson of Hindu Janjagruti Samiti. Note: This podcast was recorded on the 4th of May, a week before the Dabholkar verdict was out. The Sanatan Sanstha members, NT surgeon Tawde, Sanjeev Punalekar, and Vikram Bhave were acquitted in the verdict. Two accused were given life sentences - Sachin Andure and Sharad Kalaskar. While they were convicted, the sessions court removed UAPA charges against them. Advocate Virendra believes they will be acquitted in the High Court. Play Video Play Video 51:22 Reality Bytes Ep 12: 'Modi's Northeast Story' by Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie The book ‘Modi’s North East Story’ by Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie is a collection of essays featuring contributions from people like Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Union Minister Kiren Rijuju, Nagaland MP Phangnon Konyak and many others. In this, Nupur J Sharma speaks to the authors Tuhin Sinha and Aditya Pittie Play Video Play Video 01:34:29 Reality Bytes Ep 11: The Long Struggle for Gyanvapi Temple and 'Waiting For Shiva' I Vikram Sampath Hindus have been waiting for Shiva, much like Nandi. The book by historian Vikram Sampath, Waiting for Shiva: Unearthing the Truth of Kashi’s Gyan Vapi, traces the historical, religious, archaeological, and legal arguments to bring forth the truth about the Temple - and to explain the undying significance of the campaign to reclaim Hindu places of worship. Recently, the ASI survey of the Gyanvapi premises (disputed Masjid) revealed evidence that Hindus knew existed. But why was the survey opposed? What is the significance of the Gyanvapi Masjid case? What is the historical significance of Kashi? In this podcast with Nupur J Sharma, Vikram Sampath answers questions about the history of the Temple, the struggle by the Hindus for its reclamation spanning centuries and the lessons we can draw from that struggle today. Blog This is your section paragraph. As the first text your readers encounter, this copy should clearly convey what your site is all about. Explore

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. ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event: Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the genocide of Hindus 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. Nupur J Sharma 19 August 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] A 3-day conference cosponsored by 60+ Departments or Centers from 45+ Universities most from the USA is set to take place on the 10th, 11th and 12th of September. The event titled “Dismantling Global Hindutva” is set to see the participation of several Hindumisic elements like Audrey Truschke , Naxal sympathiser Anand Patwardhan and Nandini Sunder, Quint journalist Neha Dixit and many others. While the Hindumisic elements globally have tried to equate Hindus to Nazis, the Nazi-esque propaganda to justify the impending genocide of Hindus, is hard to miss. It is evident that this declaration of war against the Hindus has gone from a few rants of deranged minds on Twitter, to an organised campaign with journalists, academics and career Hindumisic activists joining hands. Nazi-esque propaganda and the dehumanisation of Hindus The poster of the ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event depicts an inverted hammer ‘uprooting’ brutally on what appears to be an RSS Swayamsevak, clad in saffron. The brutal, horrifying imagery has a subtle message to it, not unlike the ‘moderation’ that was peddled by the Nazis right after Röhm Putsch (The night of the long knives) where over 150 political opponents were murdered by the Nazi regime. The pseudo-moderation technique that was adopted by the Nazis essentially modelled the murderous purge as a ‘preventive measure’ to control violent people. One can see how the parallels play out in the poster of the event. In the poster, it is apparent that an RSS Swayamsevak, almost a representative image of all Hindus who are no longer ashamed of their culture, is uprooted by a hammer. However, to hide the blatant Hindumisia and the endorsement of genocide against Hindus, the poster craftily fashions the tip of the murderous hammer as a pencil. The global propaganda against the Hindus have, especially in the past few years, focussed primarily on the dehumanisation of Hindus. One recalls the posters during the anti-CAA protests and the slogans that were raised for the murder of Hindus – the most prominent ones being the slogan of ‘Hinduon se Azadi’ – essentially meaning that Muslims wanted freedom from the Hindus – supplemented with the image of sacred OM being morphed as the Nazi symbol, a Hindu woman being made to wear the Hijab and songs that called for the religious symbols of Hindus being destroyed so only the name of Allah can remain – “When All Idols Will Be Removed… Only Allah’s Name Will Remain”. The imagery in the poster also draws from the same concept of dehumanisation that has been followed against a persecuted lot since the Nazi regime. A man clad in saffron, with his roots in Bharat, being crushed by the revolution to save the country from ‘violent barbarians’. It is hard to miss the parallel to Der Stürmer (The Attacker), that printed cartoons that used antisemitic caricatures to depict Jews as not only ‘dangerous’ but also enemies of the nation – not unlike what the narrative of this poster or the Hindumisic elements have been throughout the past few years. Propaganda 101: Select a few points and repeat them over and over again “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”, said Joseph Goebbels one, the chief propagandist and faithful soldier of Adolf Hitler, right before he proceeded to murder millions of jews in one of the worst organised genocides that the world has seen. The ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event employs, effortlessly, the Goebbels technique of the demonisation of a people by proxy, to justify their eventual genocide. When one reads the ‘eventbrite’ description of the event, the following points are reiterated to justify their campaign of hate: Militant Hindu groups exist and are growing exponentially Rampant violence against minorities Citizenship Amendment Act Crackdown on dissent Imprisonment of “activists” fighting for Tribals Equating Hindutva and racism – drawing a false parallel to white supremacy The demonisation of the diaspora Demonetisation and farm laws Overall erosion of democratic practices and freedoms in India These are tropes that have been used by the propagandists at home far too often and the counter to each of these tropes have been discussed several times, at length. There really are no “Hindu militant groups” that exist in India. The ones being called the “nails” to be uprooted from India wade in knee-deep water to rescue those who need help, brave Islamist terror to save Hindus when they are being slaughtered as Muslims unleash their terror on the streets, rescue women being raped and forcefully converted to Islam, work relentlessly to offer humanitarian assistance at the times of pandemic and live lives stripped of the wine and dine luxuries that the ‘liberals’ decrying them enjoy. In fact, they trudge along their path of humanism even while their murders are whitewashed, given a political context and even celebrated. So why have these organisations been termed as ‘militant’ by these Hindumisic forces? These organisations epitomise three things, as their very foundation – self-defence, the reclamation of Hindu heritage in all its glory and the organisation and unity of Hindus – all of which poses a threat to the global hegemony of Islamists and leftists. In reality, “uprooting the RSS” is mere symbology. Hindutva, that these elements define as a “political, authoritarian ideology” that has “nothing to do with Hinduism” is nothing but a dogwhistle used to target Hindus and everything Hinduism stands for, without really explicitly talking about their genocidal dreams of “Hinduon se Azadi”. In an attempt to do so, every institution that has rallied Hindus to unite must be demonised and dehumanised. Apart from the RSS, it is also the Modi government that has been relentlessly targeted for being the political faction behind which Hindus have united in the 2014 and 2019 general elections in India. Interestingly, the tropes they use gives us a peek into their nefarious designs. While the “Dismantling Global Hindutva” event aims to talk about the mythical “violence against minorities” trope (Let’s be clear here – my minorities, they mean only Muslims. Jains being attacked by Muslims only recently, for example, is a case of religious hatred that will not even be discussed), they have conveniently used Citizenship Amendment Act as a hammer with which to beat the Modi government. This dichotomy itself explains their delirium – while they believe that Muslims in India need protection from the Hindu majority, their concern for ‘minorities’ starts and ends with Muslims – The Hindu minorities suffering in Islamic nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are those ‘heathens’ who perhaps deserve to be sacrificed to the Islamic demon, simply for daring to be pagans in an age where Islam and its barbarity are aided and abetted by self-proclaimed ‘liberals’. Further, the fact that the event has even demonised the diaspora who refuse to submit to the ‘Liberal’ agenda and continue to be proud of their roots, is a classic case of trying to equate merely being proud of ones own religious and cultural heritage to the Muslim ‘Ummah’ and the global evangelist designs whose idea of a nation-state is based on the ‘brotherhood’ between their co-religionists and the eradication of ‘Kafirs’ or ‘non-believers’. A trend has emerged over recent years to find an equivalent of monotheistic fundamentalism in the faith of polytheistic Hinduism. The saffron terror narrative of the Congress party might have collapsed but people of a particular political ideology haven’t deterred from their efforts to find in pagan Hinduism the most nefarious aspects of monotheistic faiths. It is not just the ‘Dismantling Global Hindutva’ event that equates Hindus with the KKK, not so long ago, in an issue of Outlook magazine, an attempt was made to equate Hindutva with the vicious ideology of the Ku Klux Klan by having the cover of the issue portray a member of the white supremacist American outfit sporting a Tilak. Needless to say, there is no equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan in India just as there exists no saffron terror. Those who genuinely believe that Hindutva could be equated with an ideology that asserts the supremacy of a particular race fails spectacularly at grasping the core tenets of the Hindu faith. Racial supremacy has never been a core tenet of polytheistic faiths in its entire history. Yes, the Greeks and the Romans did practice slavery, however, it was never the defining aspect of their culture or faith. In contrast to that, monotheistic faiths have continually harboured and encouraged sentiments of racial supremacy through their concept of the ‘chosen people. In this day and age, it can be most blatantly observed in Islam where the Arabs believe in the superiority of their race as a consequence of the ancestry of the Prophet of Islam. It has surely not escaped the notice of people that when a particular community converts to Islam en masse, they give up on their own heritage and adopt the traditions and customs of the Arabs so much that they could even be dubbed pirated Arabs. And if we look back at history, we can observe that white supremacy stems in part from Christian theology as well. Thus, racial supremacy is so alien to the Hindu faith that only a fool or the ideologically blinded would equate the Ku Klux Klan with Hindutva. History stands testament to the fact that Hindus, by and large, have existed together without enmity to any serious degree for hundreds and thousands of years. Despite the atrocity literature spread by vested interests, Hindu society has never witnessed a race war or a caste war ever in its ancient history. Of course, liberals are working hard to change that fact by continuously fueling regionalist and casteist sentiments to divide Hindu society but despite various political leaders’ attempt at inciting violence along caste lines, they have failed spectacularly thus far and the riots and violence that did occur was more due to political motivations rather than any indication of a deep fissure within Hindu society. And in their continued effort to create deep fissures in The Hindu society and dehumanise those who refuse to submit to this agenda, the event that is set to take place in September, even extends support to the Urban Naxals who have been arrested for waging a war against the country and those protesting Khalistanis who orchestrated an attempted insurrection on the 26th of January, using the newly passed farm laws, that actually benefits the farmers, as an excuse. When all else fails, decry democracy The cries of “democracy being in danger” in India is a fallacious, empty, abstract fall-back argument that the “liberals” often mention, to decry the Hindus who dared to elect a government they thought would look after their interests. One recalls how India was classified as an “electoral autocracy” by the very “liberals” who are repeating these tropes with this event. Autocracy essentially means a country where power is concentrated in the hands of a few people. A democracy, on the other hand, is antithetical to an autocracy – meaning the people elect the government they want in the coutry. The ‘liberals’ craftily decry India as an ‘electoral autocracy’ to give the impression that the democracy in India is dysfunctional to an extent that while it may appear to have democracy, the power actually rests in the hand of a few authoritative individuals. In reality, the only trope that they mean to cover in academic humbug is the fact that Hindus, perhaps for the first time in a long time, united to elect a government that they believed would look after their interest. Funnily enough, the Modi government itself has done paltry little to uphold the interests of Hindus exclusively. All of the policies of the Modi government has been aimed towards better governance of the nation as a whole. Even CAA, for example, that has become a thorn for these liberals, included the Sikh and Christian minorities under persecution in Islamic nations, much to the chagrin of Hindus. Despite this, the mere fact that Hindus voted overwhelmingly for a government that would not actively work against the Hindus, like Congress peddling the ‘saffron terror’ narrative or attempting to introduce the ‘communal violence bill’, has spurned the narrative that power in India rests in the hands of a few. What they mean by this, in reality, is that Hindus united and decided the government they want in power by voting in one voice and the Muslims failed to thwart the democratic will of the people. The aim of the ‘dismantling global Hindutva’ event and the solution For decades now, Hindus have been massacred and their genocide has been whitewashed in the name of ‘secularism’, ‘brotherhood’ and ‘peacekeeping’. Not just that, over time, as we see now, Hindus have been painted as the perpetrator of violence against Muslims instead of the victims of Muslim violence. From the Moplah genocide where Hindus were raped and slaughtered, to the Direct Action Day, the Noakhali massacre, the en masse genocide of Chitpavan Brahmins to the current anti-Hindu Delhi Riots, the brutal attacks against RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal members while they collected money for Ram Mandir construction to the thousands of Hindu girls being trapped in the unending loop of Grooming Jihad, Hindus have been the victims of years of onslaught. Instead of talking about the real barbarians, “liberals” whitewash Islamist crimes and paint Hindus as the perpetrators of violence. And once painted as the perpetrators of violence, they proceed to dehumanise the very existence of Hindus so when the barbaric hoards come to slaughter, the world simply looks away – because who cares about the pagan demons being slaughtered anyway? While the ‘liberals’ have spent years creating atrocity literature to prove that Hindus are monsters who deserve to be eradicated, Hindus have just about begun to document the atrocities they have been subjected to. The solution to such events is to ensure that every crime against every Hindus is documented painstakingly and spoken about widely – without filters. To tell the world out story, repeatedly, loudly. The more practical aspect is, of course, the involvement of the Indian government. US universities, many of which are funded directly by the United States government, are joining hands with Indian propagandists to demonise Hindus. These very universities have their offices in India and earn millions from Indian students. As Sandeep Balakrishna writes : “Most of the universities sponsoring this xenophobic event have their branch offices on Indian soil and they regularly recruit Indian students and therefore, a good chunk of their income comes directly from Indian taxpayers. Not to mention the fact that they use Indian resources for their operations. The question thus arises: are they recruiting Indian students to indoctrinate them in how to wage war against the native culture of their own country by using their own money in fees? This “conference” seems to prove exactly that. Two, India’s economic ties with the US and vice versa should not come at the expense of slaughtering the heart of Indian culture, which is Hindu Dharma. Three, and this message has to ring loudly in the US academia: it has to be sent from both the Indian Government and Indian businessmen and wealthy individuals–withdrawal of funding for expensive chairs and endowments. The right amount of pressure applied at all levels should hopefully do the trick”. Much remains to be said about the event itself, the organisers, the money trail and the tentacles that are out to devour the nation whole – because India does not remain what it is without the Hindus who give her basic characteristics of pluralism, culture, tradition and grandiose. However, it is time for the Indian Government to exert the right amount of pressure and for Hindus to stand up and be counted – not to cower and ask for sympathy from the devil, but to talk about the historic atrocities against Hindus, the cultural pushback that is our right and the propaganda against a people that will no longer be allowed to fester. 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.

Watch Nupur J Sharma's TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. All Videos Play Video Play Video 01:47:09 OpIndia English Reality Bytes Ep8 with Pradeep Bhandari and Rahul Roushan: 2024 General elections, Ram Mandir & more Psephologist Pradeep Bhandari tells us what to expect in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, what are the main issues, and why Narendra Modi connects with people. In this special episode, OpIndia’s editor-in-chief Nupur Sharma is joined by her colleague Rahul Roushan, who offers differing views with her on certain topics. Watch it for some light conversation and insights into electoral politics. 00:00 - Introduction and some light moments 03:36 - What will happen in 2024 general elections? 08:08 - Is there any dissatisfaction over 'core' issues? 12:20 - Why doesn't the BJP take up other core issues? 17:05 - Does Narendra Modi still attract aspirational votes? 20:20 - Ideological voters and ideological issues 24:40 - Hindu society and issues like 'Free The Temples' 31:30 - Shift on ideological issues from 2014 to 2024 34:39 - How Modi government has shifted the narrative 36:46 - Logic behind Pasmanda Muslim outreach of BJP 44:26 - Muslims in Uttar Pradesh under Yogi government 51:13 - Non-implementation of CAA and its impact in Bengal 54:09 - Post-poll violence in West Bengal was anti-Hindu violence 1:11:08 - Dissatisfaction over center's role during Bengal's post-poll violence? 1:19:46 - Nupur Sharma episode and bogey of Islamophobia 1:27:39 - One word for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections mood 1:29:28 - Next big issue for Hindus after Ram Temple? 1:32:27 - Risk of "India Shining" type fiasco in 2024 for BJP? 1:39:22 - Why Narendra Modi impresses people and not Rahul Gandhi 1:43:46 - Pradeep Bhandari asks if OpIndia people fear regime change Play Video Play Video 01:19:22 OpIndia English Robert Spencer talks about the global menace of Jihad Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nineteen books and an authority on radical Islamism and the threat posed by Jihad Play Video Play Video 46:52 Republic World Arnab's Debate: FIR Mentions Pak Slogans Raised At Nuh Violence, Was There A Larger Conspiracy? The FIR mentions Pakistan slogans raised at Nuh violence, raising questions about a potential larger conspiracy. #ArnabDebates #ArnabGoswami #Nuh #Pakistan Republic TV is India's no.1 English news channel since its launch. It is your one-stop destination for all the live news updates from India and around the world. Republic TV makes news accessible for you at your convenience, at all times and across devices. At Republic we keep you updated with up-to-the-minute news on politics, sports, entertainment, lifestyle, gadgets and much more. We believe in Breaking the story and Breaking the Silence. But most importantly, for us ‘You Are Republic, We Are Your Voice.’ Also, Watch ► Republic TV Live News Updates ►http://bit.ly/RepublicTVLiveNews The Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/TheDebateWithArnabGoswami Patriot With Major Gaurav Arya ► http://bit.ly/PatriotFullEpisodes Exclusive Sunday Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/SundayDebate Checkmate With Major Gaurav Arya (Retd.) ► https://bit.ly/3EtPj0s The Grand Strategy With Maj Gen G.D Bakshi (Retd) ► https://bit.ly/3EPZ6xF R.Explained ► https://bit.ly/3sOLT5K R.Uninterrupted ► https://bit.ly/34isZdh You can stay connected with Republic TV on - Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RepublicWorld Twitter - https://twitter.com/republic Website - https://www.republicworld.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/republicworld Disclaimer: Republic Media Network may provide content through third-party websites, operating systems, platforms, and portals (‘Third-Party Platforms’). Republic does not control and has no liability for Third-Party Platforms, including content hosted, advertisements, security, functionality, operation, or availability. Play Video Play Video 54:43 Republic World Rana Ayyub In Multi-Crore Charity Fund Scandal | The Debate With Arnab Goswami Republic TV is India's no.1 English news channel since its launch. It is your one-stop destination for all the live news updates from India and around the world. Republic TV makes news accessible for you at your convenience, at all times and across devices. At Republic we keep you updated with up-to-the-minute news on politics, sports, entertainment, lifestyle, gadgets and much more. We believe in Breaking the story and Breaking the Silence. But most importantly, for us ‘You Are Republic, We Are Your Voice.’ Also, Watch ► Republic TV Live News Updates ►http://bit.ly/RepublicTVLiveNews The Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/TheDebateWithArnabGoswami Patriot With Major Gaurav Arya ► http://bit.ly/PatriotFullEpisodes Exclusive Sunday Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/SundayDebate Checkmate With Major Gaurav Arya (Retd.) ► https://bit.ly/3EtPj0s The Grand Strategy With Maj Gen G.D Bakshi (Retd) ► https://bit.ly/3EPZ6xF R.Explained ► https://bit.ly/3sOLT5K R.Uninterrupted ► https://bit.ly/34isZdh You can stay connected with Republic TV on - Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RepublicWorld Twitter - https://twitter.com/republic Website - https://www.republicworld.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/republicworld #republictv #republicworld #republictvlive #englishnews #news #arnabgoswami #arnabgoswamilive #arnabdebates #nationwantstoknow Play Video Play Video 54:43 Republic World Rana Ayyub In Multi-Crore Charity Fund Scandal | The Debate With Arnab Goswami Republic TV is India's no.1 English news channel since its launch. It is your one-stop destination for all the live news updates from India and around the world. Republic TV makes news accessible for you at your convenience, at all times and across devices. At Republic we keep you updated with up-to-the-minute news on politics, sports, entertainment, lifestyle, gadgets and much more. We believe in Breaking the story and Breaking the Silence. But most importantly, for us ‘You Are Republic, We Are Your Voice.’ Also, Watch ► Republic TV Live News Updates ►http://bit.ly/RepublicTVLiveNews The Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/TheDebateWithArnabGoswami Patriot With Major Gaurav Arya ► http://bit.ly/PatriotFullEpisodes Exclusive Sunday Debate With Arnab Goswami ► http://bit.ly/SundayDebate Checkmate With Major Gaurav Arya (Retd.) ► https://bit.ly/3EtPj0s The Grand Strategy With Maj Gen G.D Bakshi (Retd) ► https://bit.ly/3EPZ6xF R.Explained ► https://bit.ly/3sOLT5K R.Uninterrupted ► https://bit.ly/34isZdh You can stay connected with Republic TV on - Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/RepublicWorld Twitter - https://twitter.com/republic Website - https://www.republicworld.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/republicworld #republictv #republicworld #republictvlive #englishnews #news #arnabgoswami #arnabgoswamilive #arnabdebates #nationwantstoknow Play Video Play Video 01:00:26 Talks ‘Talks’ With OpIndia Editor Nupur J Sharma. OpIndia की एडिटर नूपुर जे शर्मा के साथ ख़ास बातचीत #opindia #nupursharma #Unsubtledesi #talks #hindutva #narendramodi #rahulgandhi #arvindkejriwal #jnu #mamatabanerjee #mahatmagandhi Play Video Play Video 01:47:39 OpIndia English Arnab Goswami talks to OpIndia Arnab Goswami opens up in a tell-all exclusive about Republic TV becoming the #1 channel in India, media ethics, neutrality, his critics and more Play Video Play Video 41:01 OpIndia English Bhainsa Riots: Nupur Sharma talks to Telangana MP Arvind Dharmapuri On March 7, Hindu-Muslim riots erupted in communally sensitive Bhainsa, Telangana. With reports of Hindus being brutalised, the Telangana govt has ensured that media does not have access to report the truth. OpIndia talks about BJP MP Arvind Dharmapuri to understand what we know about the Bhainsa riots and the plight of Hindus in the area Media Speech is power, speech is to persuade. This section featured select TV appearances, speeches, talks, Q&As and videos. Podcast Bringing you reports and stories from a perspective often ignored or suppressed by the mainstream media of India. Explore Civilisational Advocacy Play Video Play Video 01:19:22 OpIndia English Robert Spencer talks about the global menace of Jihad Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of nineteen books and an authority on radical Islamism and the threat posed by Jihad Play Video Play Video 01:11:49 Navonmesh नवोन्मेष वैचारिक मंथन कार्यक्रम - श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी नवोन्मेष फाउंडेशन द्वारा आयोजित "वैचारिक मंथन" कार्यक्रम में उपस्थित हुए सैंकड़ों लोगों को श्रीमती नुपूर जे. शर्मा जी ने हिंदू धर्म में महिलाओं के अधिकार को लेकर किया संबोधित। #navonmesh #navonmeshjaipur #navonmeshjaipur2023 #नवोन्मेष #वैचारिक_मंथन #वैचारिक_मंथन_कार्यक्रम #hindutva #hinduecosystem Play Video Play Video 01:16:44 Sangam Talks Khilafat 2.0 | Nupur J Sharma | @OpIndiaHindi @OpIndiaEnglish | #SangamTalks Islamic barbarity and terrorism has subjugated Hindus for centuries. One of the greatest examples of tyranny was the Khilafat movement, made to restore the Turkish caliphate, with deeply Islamic overtones, was packaged as a “freedom struggle”. Today, we see the contours of Khilafat 2.0 yet again - movements aimed at Islamic supremacy and subjugation of Hindus packaged a “protests” against various legislations and leaders, much like the leaders of then, whitewashing the genocide and religious subjugation of Hindus. Abouth The Speaker: Nupur J Sharma is a management graduate from Symbiosis. After running her business for years, she decided to leave that behind. She has been the editor in chief of OpIndia for the past 5 years and her prime focus is documenting persecution of Hindus. She has published a fact-finding report on the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of 2020 which is available on Kindle. She has also done seminal work in documenting the persecution of Hindus across the globe. Articles: https://www.opindia.com/author/unsubtledesi/ Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019: An OpIndia Report : https://www.amazon.in/-/hi/Nupur-J-Sharma-ebook/dp/B08DNNWNXR/ Sub-Topics: 0:00 Power Statements 1:10 Barkha Dutt's 'Sheroes' Ladeeda Saklun (Jamia Milia Islamia) and Rana Ayyub's threat of Jihad to the Hindus of India 3:42 Ottoman empire's farman to Tipu Sultan and Indian Muslims participationg in 1857 freedom struggle, to cooperate with the British 6:19 Khilafat 1.0 in 1919 and Mahatma Gandhi's blind trust in Indian Muslims loyalty to Independence struggle 7:50 MK Gandhi clubbed the Jalianwala bagh massacre and Khilafat movement together as if they were same issues 9:40 Mappilah Muslims atrocities on Malabar Hindus go way back in mid 1840's (British records) 16:45 Faiyaz Tyabji chosen by Congress in 1921 to investigate if the Moplah massacre was an uprising or genocide 18:24 The 'Rangeela Rasool' controversy, Gandhi's support to Muslims, murder of Mahashay Rajpal Malhotra of Arya Samāj and passing of IPC 295A 22:07 Direct Action Day in 1946 - Jihad against Kāfirs in full flow and Gopal Patha's defense of Hindus 26:10 Noakhali genocide and the silence of Gandhi-Nehru 27:56 ISIS comes out with an India centric magazine calling for Jihad against Kafirs in Feb 2022 29:48 Adv Mehmood Paracha calling for arms license for Muslims in a mosque 30:05 PFI 2047 document and the deadly plan of Dalit+Muslim unity trope "Jai Bheem Jai Meem" 31:00 2019 Hauz Khasi (Delhi) Anti Hindu riots of 2019 and repetition of such events in India 38:15 Congress and other anti Hindu parties conduct and speeches during the anti-CAA protests 40:20 Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence 41:14 The disclosure statements of AAP MCD Councilor, Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi will shock you to the core 44:00 'Sar tan se juda' beheadings and the Hijab controversy since beginning of 2022 and the Nupur Sharma case of Blasphemy (IPC295A) 48:30 Nothing called 'moderate Islam'. There is 'Ummah' or global Muslim Brotherhood - a real threat to humanity 52:51 Jinnah, Jihadis and PFI - All are Islamists waging Jihad against Kafirs 54:30 Barkha Dutt and other anti Hindu media persons 55:00 Threats that Hindus need to wake up to and do something about it Join our newsletter for getting updates on upcoming lectures: https://www.sangamtalks.com/subscribe Join our YouTube video channel for learning about new video releases: Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/sangamhindi English : https://www.youtube.com/c/SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH3afXBAYabOqTIi4uKFbZg Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJdh1RmnQIYnGERJ2jAFCA Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQERR3gS0PmEDHKUgCW9LA Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmqDkiFNgGs95D3g6mBcmg Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVssln7NCnwv88-UVMtNpw Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1a89nobV2ozUlFpDhp7QIw Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ehxDugiAxBxPLsZNTM_rQ For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Koo : https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate Play Video Play Video 01:06:44 OpIndia English The Places of Worship Act and how the reclaim Kashi, Mathura J Sai Deepak talks about the Places of Worship Act and how to reclaim Kashi and Mathura Play Video Play Video 16:23 Stop! HinduDvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor - Op India, speaks on Hindudvesha Ms. Nupur Sharma, Editor of OpIndia, speaking at the International Conference on UNDERSTANDING HINDUDVESHA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD, at the Constitution Club, Delhi, April 1, 2023 Play Video Play Video 01:01:48 Pondy Lit Fest Our Inexorable Laws Justice Jaichandren, Navdeep Singh, Sandhya Jain, Swati Goel Sharma, Nupur Sharma, J Sai Deepak (Chair) Play Video Play Video 03:13 SangamTalks TV Media History of Moplah riots against Hindus | Nupur J Sharma | #sangamshorts Main talk link: https://youtu.be/UFusz7PoOiE Talk title: Khilafat 2.0 Speaker: Nupur J Sharma Join our newsletter for getting updates on upcoming lectures: https://www.sangamtalks.com/subscribe Join our YouTube video channel for learning about new video releases: Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/sangamhindi English : https://www.youtube.com/c/SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH3afXBAYabOqTIi4uKFbZg Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiJdh1RmnQIYnGERJ2jAFCA Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVQERR3gS0PmEDHKUgCW9LA Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPmqDkiFNgGs95D3g6mBcmg Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVssln7NCnwv88-UVMtNpw Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1a89nobV2ozUlFpDhp7QIw Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8ehxDugiAxBxPLsZNTM_rQ For updates you may follow us on: Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/sangamtalks Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/sangamtalks/ Telegram : https://t.me/sangamtalks Twitter : https://twitter.com/sangamtalks Koo : https://www.kooapp.com/profile/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate Play Video Play Video 22:34 OpIndia English Editor in Chief, Nupur J Sharma, talks on the anniversary of anti-Hindu Delhi Riots Nupur J Sharma talks on the anniversary of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots at an event organised by GIA (Group of Intellectuals and Academicians).

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. “We will not worship if Muslims don’t want, but please save us”: From India to Bangladesh, how veto of violence works 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. Nupur J Sharma 14 October 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] The vibrant festival of Durga Puja, when Maa Durga descends on earth on Mahalaya, is celebrated with much fervour especially by Bengali Hindus. Across Bengal, there are gorgeous Murtis of Maa, adorned with gorgeous jewellery, colourful sarees and sindoor are installed with devotees flocking to the pandals to pray for the triumph of good over evil. The Puja reaches a crescendo on the Dashami day, or Bijoya, when Ma Durga slayed Mahishasura, earning her the moniker Mahishasuramardini. While Maa Durga slew the demon, in Kalayug, the demon seems to live on. In Bangladesh, which is at least 91% Muslim dominated, Hindus are being persecuted simply because they dared to be Hindu and pray to Maa Durga. As Bengali Hindus from Bangladesh started celebrating Durga Puja, Muslim mobs vandalised at least 20 pandals and desecrated the idols. After a false rumour of the Quran being desecrated, several more Durga Puja pandals were vandalised and over 150 Hindu families were attacked. Sharing a video of an attack on Hindus, Advocate Dr Gobinda Chandra Pramanik, Secretary-General of Bangladesh Jatio Hindu Mohajote tweeted, “The situation is terrible!! Attacks on 150 families in Shilpara, Cox’s Bazar, widespread vandalism, looting, vandalism of Hatiya in Noakhali, vandalism of idols in municipal Kalimandir, attack Vandalism, molestation of women, 2 people have been found dead in Chandpur.” In yet another update, advocate Chandra shared the news of the publicity secretary of Chandpur district branch of Bangladesh National Hindu Youth Grand Alliance being hacked to death. The land of Naokhali has long been permeated with Hindu blood. 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. While the Hindus were being persecuted, killed, attacked and their faith being desecrated by Muslim mobs in Bangladesh, back in India, a ‘Muslim journalist’ was wondering how Muslims are so “remarkably patient”. Rana Ayyub, who identifies herself as a Muslim journalist, took to Twitter to marvel at the remarkable patience that Muslims seem to show in India. She said that not a single day in the past 7 years has she not thought about the remarkable patience shown by 200 million Muslims in India given the attack and humiliation they face every day. This mythical attack, Rana believes, is ‘enabled by the government’. Emphatically, almost screaming into the abyss, Rana reiterates.. ‘EVERY SINGLE DAY’. Rana paints an abysmal picture. We can almost imagine bodies of Muslims strewn on the blood-soaked roads of India. We can imagine men dressed in saffron with Modi-looking masks running around with guns and swords waiting to extract their pound of flesh from the innocent Muslims who were just living their work-a-day lives, taking care of their 8 children and 4 wives, praying in silence while loudspeakers blare their call to Allah. She makes us believe that Hindus are a barbaric cult running around raping Muslim women, murdering Muslim men and torturing Muslim babies. We know that is not the truth. We know Hindus can barely defend themselves, leave alone go on a rampage. Throughout history, Hindus have been murdered, raped and humiliated by Muslim hoards while their leaders have asked them to bow their heads and die with a smile on their faces. When MK Gandhi had visited Naokhali, he was rebuked by the Muslim League and after that, he had 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. In recent years, we have seen how the Delhi anti-Hindu riots were planned and executed by Muslim mobs. Right from the protest of Shaheen Bagh to the murder of Hindus amidst chants of Allahu Akbar and Nara-e-Taqbeer, it was made amply clear to Hindus that these protests and the ensuing violence were specifically targeted against Hindus. We heard chants of Hinduon-se-Azadi and Jinnah-wali-azadi and throughout, the narrative was that it was the Muslims who were being persecuted while Hindus were the aggressors. The examples are aplenty and at this point, repeating those examples almost makes it seem like Hindus like myself suffer from echolalia. What we need to understand is how (and why) Muslim journalists like Rana Ayyub continue to drum up the ‘Hindus murdering Muslims’ trope while Hindus are regularly massacred by the Muslim mob. There are two crucial aspects to this narrative. Firstly, the veto of violence that the Muslim community exercises is paramount and all-pervasive. Secondly, much like what ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi asked Hindus to do, the state today and the ecosystem that shields the Muslim community commands the Hindu to wither and die without a fight because the Hindu should be grateful that the Muslims did not burn more than they did, shed more blood than they did, raped more than they had and destroyed less than they could – the bigotry of low expectations. Let us take an example. During the Delhi riots, it was the Muslims who planned and executed a pogrom against Hindus. They stabbed Ankit Sharma so many times that his intestines were visible when his body was pulled out of the gutter. They cut the hands and legs of Dilbar Negi and burnt him alive, simply because he was Hindu. Tahir Hussain confessed that amidst slogans of Nara-e-Taqbeer, they conspired to murder Hindus. The narrative, however, was that Hindus were the ones who murdered Muslims. How? Because after the first day and a half, Hindus decided that they needed to defend themselves. In a single spate of violence, one can possibly understand why the Muslim mob and their own narrative prevails over all else. First and foremost, the Muslims have the street-veto. While we Hindus trend hashtags and write articles (like I am writing this one) to boycott brands when an ad insulting their faith is published, Muslims take to the streets demanding the ‘blasphemes’ head on a platter. When Kamlesh Tiwari insulted the ‘Prophet’, Muslims took out marches on the roads screaming at the top of their lungs – ‘Gustakh-e-rasool ki sazaa, sar tan se juda’. Now, one could say that both Hindus and Muslims are only screaming into the empty, gaping hole without any tangible effect on the ground or on the brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims. However, while Hindus failed to even cancel the individuals insulting their faith, the Muslim radicals beheaded Tiwari and sent a chilling message to the Hindus. It is a function of this street veto that no law seems to control the menace of Islamism. The worldview of significant sections of the Muslim community make it quite difficult, and in certain cases impossible, to implement law and order in ghettos where they are the overwhelming majority. There is significant resistance towards the implementation of law and order in these areas and a lot of these places are ‘no-go zones’ even for the Police. In such a scenario, the police also focus on arresting the ‘blaspheme’ rather than those threatening to behead a man for saying something mildly uncomfortable. Which government would want to deal with the pressure of acting against an innately violent community after they have beheaded a man? Would it not be simply to arrest the one who offends the barbarian than to tame to barbarian himself? It is a cowardly cop-out, but one that States take to deal with an unnamable Asura that no law, no civilisation has been able to contain. 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. She tells the Hindus that she simply can’t stop thinking about the restraint displayed by the radicals. When they could murder 500, they murdered only 50. When they could balkanise the nation, they only burnt a state or two. When they could make harems with women won as war-booty, they raped only a few thousand Hindu women. The bigotry of low expectations shines through so bright, that the Hindus almost gets blinded into believing that they owe a debt of gratitude to the Muslim mobs for not annihilating them completely. In Bangladesh today, the Hindus are being attacked for simply being Hindu and exercising their right to worship. Their basic right to worship Maa Durga when she descends on earth to bless her children. As the Muslim mobs exercise their street veto, the Hindus beg for mercy. They say if the Muslims don’t want, they will stop worshipping Maa, but the State must save them. The State, in turn, watches on as impotent bystanders because they rather let the barbarian run amuck than deal with the harsh reality that the beast of Islamism would need a Maa Durga to be tamed. As Hindus get massacred, soon, the narrative would begin the emerge. Hindus in Bangladesh are being murdered not because Islamists hate Kafirs, but because some miscreant who wants to tarnish the brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims floated a rumour that the Quran was desecrated. Not all Muslims are bad. They did not go on a rampage because they hate Hindus. They did so because they were misled. Because their fragile feelings were hurt. They would never hurt Hindus if their faith had not been hurt. Do you say it has happened before? That they desecrate Hindu festivals every year? Do you want to remind people of the Bhola massacre? They must have had their reasons, for sure. They love peace. Don’t blame them. Be thankful that they stopped eventually. Be thankful that they did not kill them all. Be thankful that they are.. peaceful.

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 ↗︎ Damyati At Damyati, a signature line by Nupur J Sharma, we offer pieces of history paying tribute to our bravest legends. Visit Store 30.01% off Quick View Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Statue Regular Price ₹10,000.00 Sale Price ₹6,999.00 Add to Cart 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

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.