Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Many Hindus still think what Nupur Sharma said was ‘unnecessary’: Here is a necessary read for them Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma's comment was "unnecessary", but if there was a word of caution, it would be this - tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. Nupur J Sharma 7 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] On the 5th of June, BJP suspended the now-former spokesperson of the party, Nupur Sharma, after certain Muslim countries started getting irate about certain comments she had made during a debate (basically, quoting the Hadit). The BJP claimed that Nupur had taken a stand contrary to theirs on several occasions and therefore, an inquiry would be initiated against her pending which she would stand suspended from the party – a party she had been associated with for over 15 years. The move led to widespread condemnation predominantly from those who support and vote for the BJP since the move was seen as the party taking away institutional support from her amidst death and rape threats by Islamists. Those who prefer to support the party with utmost loyalty have theorised that she is being given protection against the threats she has been receiving, however, her suspension is in the national interest because India cannot afford to dent its hard-won relationship with the Muslim world. I would not be getting into that argument since it is beyond the scope of this article. However, there were certain other arguments made to essentially justify the suspension of Nupur Sharma. One of the most predominant ones relied on the classic argument – ‘But it was unnecessary for Nupur to get into that argument’, ‘It was unnecessary for her to insult their faith’, ‘It was unnecessary for her to lose her patience on national television? Does she not know they get violence about perceived blasphemy?”. The obvious problem with this argument is that it essentially blames the victim. By saying this, even if it is said with reference to her suspension, one tacitly ends up justifying the threats that she has been at the receiving end of. The Islamists use exactly this argument to justify their calls for “Sar Tan Se Juda’. They say, “Nupur Sharma should have known that if she comments on Prophet Muhammad, we will get offended and demand her head”. The logical slide of this argument is staggering. If the “She should have known better” argument is to be accepted, every victim of every crime can be shamed using it. One basically places far more value on someone’s whim than facts when one uses this argument – Because Nupur Sharma chose to legitimately exercise her freedom of expression, the calls to behead her are justified because she should have known that her speech can lead to hurt feelings which can, in turn, lead to her execution. But beyond the logical slide of that argument, there is a civilisational aspect that is far more concerning. First and foremost, we perhaps need to understand the civilisational illiteracy from which this argument stems. For the longest time, Indians, even in schools, have been fed with tropes about all religions being equal. It is a trope that has made Indians, especially Hindus, rather blind to reality and insufferably sanctimonious. One of the reasons why certain Hindus believe that Nupur Sharma’s comments were “unnecessary” is because they truly believe that all religions are fundamentally equal and it is not completely abnormal to be offended when remarks about one’s faith are made. That argument is not off the mark – it is natural to be a little hurt – but it is certainly not the characteristic of every faith to give calls to behead. What is also untrue is that all religions are equal. 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. When verses of the Quran ordain its followers to slay Kafirs and Polytheists, one has to wonder how can a religion that is at odds with Polytheism be equal and aspire for the same goals as that of a Polytheistic religion? When Islam is at odds with Polytheism and the religious texts explicitly mention the subjugation of any Polytheist faith, how accurate is it to say that all religions are exactly the same? Therefore, why it is “necessary” for Hindus to talk about, dissect and analyse Islam openly and honestly is because it is a faith that demands the sacrifice of Hindus. There is nothing remotely similar in Hindu texts that goad the Hindu community to annihilate those who follow another religion. Therefore, for Nupur to clap back at a Muslim panellist denigrating Hinduism by merely quoting the Hadits is necessary. It is necessary because the Islamic community needs to acknowledge, at the very least, that their insult to Hinduism comes from religious hate while the Hindus’ comment on Islam comes from a place of either self-defence or frustration at being subjugated for centuries. For aeons, we have been told that the onus of maintaining peace, harmony and brotherhood rests on the shoulders of Hindus. And those Hindus, who think merely the fact that Hindus don’t indulge in violence fulfils this responsibility of maintaining brotherhood, are wrong. Hindus are expected to maintain brotherhood by ceding everything they hold sacred and by giving up large parts of their personal liberty. Hindus are not supposed to be offended when their faith is mocked, not supposed to utter a word against Islam, understand that Islam is peaceful and all the violence in the name of Islam does not represent Islam, die with a smile on our faces if we are murdered by Islamists, shut our eyes to facts, give up claims on our places of worship, accept that we are devil worshippers and believe, deep in our heart, that Islamists think of us as brothers and sisters while they hold a sword to our neck. This cast of mind is so set in the Hindu psyche that any comment on Islam, even innocuous ones, seems “unnecessary” because it would lead to friction, violence and “disruption of harmony” – a harmony that only existed because the victims of Islamist violence and hate, the Hindus, had Stockholm Syndrome and were beaten to believe that accepting that subjugation with a smile on their face was their eternal responsibility. It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the main criticisms of Nupur Sharma is that her comments were completely “unnecessary”. She, in order to maintain this mythical harmony, must give up her rights, her hurt, her thoughts and essentially, the damn truth because one just never knows what might irk the intolerant minority off. While Hindus do as Hindus were taught, this trope pushes us down a slope where the slide will ensure that it pulls the entirety of our civilisation down. Sita Ram Goel had said, “To start with, we want to take up what we consider to be its most important contribution, namely, the unravelling of two behaviour patterns – Muslim and National – which collaborated closely for years and precipitated Partition in the final round. The Muslim behaviour pattern was characterized by acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations, and street riots. The National behaviour pattern, on the other hand, was characterized by acquiescence, assent, cajolery, concessions, cowardice, self-reproach, and surrender”. It has been decades since Goel wrote these words and to this day, they hold true. You see, the Muslim community has an insatiable appetite for concessions. You make one, they will demand another. You concede, they will demand 10 more. Soon, you will realise that the Hindu community has given up everything to placate the petulant minority and yet, has been met with nothing but acrimony. If today, we believe that Nupur Sharma’s statement was “unnecessary” because it ended up provoking the Islamic community, that is a needless concession that the Hindu community is extending to the Islamists. They have the right to be hurt, but not the right to be riotous. 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. Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma’s comment was “unnecessary”, but if there was a word of caution, it would be this – tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. They won’t only claim this openly, but they will make you guilt-ridden enough to truly believe that your existence is “unnecessary”, impeding their faith, and therefore, you must die with a smile on your face when they come for you.

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.

As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. An open letter to Justice Joseph, which I hope he can read if he has stopped smiling at the calls for genocide of Brahmins and Hindus As a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that 'justice' will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”. Nupur J Sharma 30 March 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Justice Joseph (Image credit: The Economic Times) Dear Justice Joseph, I hope you find the time to read this open letter since substantial time has passed and I am hoping you would have recuperated from your mirth over the calls for the genocide of Hindus and Brahmins. Hindus in general have always had unbound faith in the Judiciary. This is not evidence of the independence of the Judiciary or a testament to how the Judiciary has dispensed justice to 80% of Bharat’s population, but a result of the very idea of ‘Nyaya’ that Hindus believe in and the imagery it invokes for them. When Hindus in general think about Nyaya (Justice, though the English word hardly does ‘justice’ to the concept of Nyaya), Hindus are often transported to their reading of the Bhagavad Gita, with images of Shree Krishna and the great warrior Arjun. The respect for the Judiciary and Judges essentially stems from the ingrained imagery of those meant to dispense Nyaya and restore balance in an ordered, cultured, just, Dharmic society. One may call it the naivety of Hindus or the consequence of their Bhakti, but the respect for Judiciary stems from their Dharmic learnings and not necessarily the actions of the Court. Covering the Delhi Riots, I have pondered on the concept of Justice for a long time. What is Justice? It is said that Justice cannot be delivered but it should seem to have been delivered by the parties involved, which is to say that all parties must feel like they have received their rightful due when Nyaya is dispensed. In a complex society with varying moral standards, that is, of course, an illusion. In the Delhi Riots, the violence unleashed by the Muslim mob was seen as justifiable action by the conspirators of the violence because they believed they had enough reasons for mass action against Hindus. The Hindus, on the other hand, saw their violence and their genocidal rhetoric as an injustice and a sin, so to speak. In the end, the Muslim side would never believe that Justice was delivered to them unless the courts categorically lie and state that the riot, orchestrated for months by Islamists, was actually violence committed by the Hindus against Muslims. For the real victims, the Hindus, justice would never be delivered even if the perpetrators of the violence are punished. A Hindu shop owner, whose shop was burnt down, will refuse to testify because he fears the Muslim mob, his neighbours, would come back for retribution if he did. He will forever burn in the fire of injustice, being incapable of restoring balance and having nobody to speak for his rights. The mother of Dilbar Negi would be left without her son, forever, with his murderers being given undue concessions by the judiciary simply because the Muslim side’s idea of justice is vastly different and institutions are wired to cater to adharmic moral standards. Even if Dilbar Negi and Ankit Sharma’s murderers are punished, those who incited violence for over 3 months, leading to the anti-Hindu riots that claimed their lives, would go unpunished. The Muslim journalists (their words, not mine), the activists (their claim, not mine), the former Judges who whitewashed the purpose of the violence, and assorted participants in the monstrosity would live and prosper. That is no justice. Is Justice the ‘rule of law’ or does ‘justice’ have a more poetic disposition? Is ‘justice’ a long process where the written rule is followed to the letter, or is it the process to assign responsibility? Domitus Ulpian said ‘Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due’. That definition is perhaps one closest to what Dharmics believe and what the Bhagavad Gita teaches us. Every man gets his due. The fruit of one’s Karma and Dharma. Good or bad but just, nonetheless. Yesterday, you heard a contempt plea filed in a bunch of petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech in the country. You, sir, along with Justice BV Nagarathna made significant observations while hearing the contempt plea filed against the Maharashtra government for allegedly failing to control hate speeches by Hindu organisations despite orders of the apex court. The significance of the observations made by you and your brother Judge is apparent by the ire it has received from Hindus across the spectrum. While I can’t possibly give you sermons on what the concept of Justice should be, the concept of Nyaya dictates that one is impartial, but is true in drawing the line between right and wrong and having drawn that line, has the courage to punish those in the wrong. While that is true, those who sit in authority dispensing ‘justice’ should, at least, start from a point of honest and impartial evaluation. Justice Joseph, I would humbly ask if you have questioned yourself and wondered if you dispensed your Dharma truthfully and started from a place of genuine inquiry rather than tainted prejudice. At the very outset, dare I say, you pronounced your judgement, or at least, hinted at what your judgement would be eventually. The derision and the condescension that the Hindu Samaj counsel had to withstand goes against the general moral fibre of the Judiciary and the principles that Judges claim to espouse. When the counsel said his plea was in the larger interest of Hindus, he was immediately a recipient of your ire. “So you are before us now and you are holding the rallies. Do you have right to break the law? Can you break law of land?”, you said. What happened next only proved that the cloth that covers the eyes of lady justice was opaque, not because she did not want to see who had come to her seeking justice, so she could be impartial, but because the truth was simply too much and looking away was easier. Here, you have asked what happens to the rights of minorities as envisioned by our founding fathers, that tolerance (you make it clear that tolerance means accepting differences and not just putting up with someone) is a legacy we have been handed down and that the Muslims chose this country to stay back in after the partition and their dignity must be upheld. You have also said that they are our brothers and sisters and that if one breaks the law, the law will tumble upon him like a ton of bricks. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench I truly believe that if Mahatma Gandhi were alive, he would have gladly ‘christened’ you, Justice Joseph as his worthy successor. I don’t disagree with what Justice Nagarathna said. Everyone has a right to conduct a rally but what happens in that rally is the point of contention, and why this same judiciary discarded that principle is something we will discuss further in this article. You, Justice Joseph, asked a pertinent question – what about the rights of the minorities as ‘envisaged by our founding fathers’? First and foremost, Bharat is an ancient civilisation. Perhaps the religious conflict we see today is because we haven’t turned mere mortals into the “founding fathers” of a civilisation founded and nurtured by the Gods. You then said that Tolerance is not putting up with somebody but accepting differences. What you said sounds great for rhetoric, but the actual definition of tolerance is ‘the capacity to endure pain or hardship’. Here, I agree with you. Hindus have developed immense tolerance since we became a nation-state. We tolerated the Naokhali genocide. We tolerated Direct Action Day. We tolerated the Malabar genocide of Hindus. We tolerated being told that we must die with a smile on our faces. We tolerated being held responsible for our own genocide. We tolerate, to this day, overlords denying us our rights. Only yesterday we reported that Hindus had been denied their right of holding the Ram Navami procession because a year ago, in Jahangirpuri, the right-less, offended, aggrieved minority had gone on a rampage against Hindus during Hanuman Jayanti. We tolerated our rights being taken away so they are not offended, My Lord. Yes. We are tolerant. We have a legacy, a recent legacy, but a legacy nonetheless, of tolerating injustice. That you ask us to respect that tainted legacy, is what hurts me as a Hindu. You say that Muslims chose to stay back in India and they are our brothers and sisters. We cannot hurt their dignity and self-respect. I agree with you, sir. If I may be so presumptuous, I would like to point out that you are talking not about tolerance but about pluralism – a concept that requires us to admit that every faith has a grain of truth to it and therefore, every faith is to be respected. Hindus have done their bit. Have those you protect extended that same courtesy? “The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation” – Not my words, sir. The words of one of our ‘founding fathers’ you referred to – Dr BR Ambedkar. He further said, “The realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the fact that while the Musalman accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as his inferior.” Here is another one – “whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count, towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where the law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs, and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. ” As for how the Muslims stayed back because they are our brothers, I am sure you know that is not entirely true. Numbers have proved otherwise. Evidence exists to the contrary. I would merely point you in the direction of this article and leave it at that. Nevertheless, it confused me that after saying to the Hindu Samaj counsel that you would stick to the contempt petition, you went ahead and issued factually and morally inaccurate sermons to him, Hindu Samaj and I presume Hindus in general. I won’t lie, however. While reading the report by Bar and Bench, I was momentarily swayed by your assertions of brotherhood and fraternity. I was tempted to shed everything I know to be factual and let go of all my anger against a community that has historically oppressed my people. Then, however, something happened that jolted me back to reality. After talking about the self-respect and dignity of the minority community and the brotherhood that we seemingly share, you almost justified the calls for genocide against my people. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench When SG Tushar Mehta pointed out that when hearing a matter on hate speech, one must also consider hate speeches made against the Hindu community, you smiled and your statement gave the impression that you, and your brother judge, were justifying those calls. I understand why SG Mehta brought it up – you were indicting one community for alienating another. When hate speech is evaluated based on religion, both sides must be heard. You, however, denied Hindus that opportunity. When Justice Nagarathna asked SG “why” the DMK leader said that “if you want equality, all Brahmins must be butchered”, he essentially asked what Brahmins or Hindus, in general, had done which forced the DMK leader to ask for their genocide. When you smiled and asked the SG if he knew who Periyar was, you essentially said that because Periyar wanted the genocide of Brahmins, the DMK leader asking for the same is justifiable. By the same logic sir, would you say that demand for the partition of India is justified because Jinnah wanted it too? Would you accept separatist calls as justified? If a Muslim calls for the genocide of Hindus saying that they should be bothered on the day the Battle of Badr was fought and won by Allah, would you smile and remind us of Jinnah to justify those calls? If an Islamist says that he has the right to butcher non-believers, would you then quote the Quran to say that his genocidal call is justified? You did not just stop there, sir. You went ahead and gave context to statements inciting the murder of Hindus by a proscribed terror outfit and blamed Hindus for these calls. Here is why I say this. Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench Proceedings as reported by Bar & Bench When SG Mehta insisted that you see a video clip of a speech made at a PFI rally, calling for the genocide of Hindus, you refused. For your benefit, here is the content of the video that SG Mehta wanted you to watch: “Be ready for your death rituals if you won’t live in our land quietly. Be ready with rice flakes to fill your mouth, if you won’t live quietly (For Hindus ). Be ready to burn amber in your home if you won’t live quietly ( For Christians). Because we are coming, we are your death. We won’t go to Pakistan or Bangladesh, you have to live here as we say, or else we know how to make you live quietly, we will kill you even if we are attacked. We take pride in being a martyr, we salute them. If you won’t live quietly, we know how to ask for ‘Azadi’. Be prepared for your death,” the PFI members shouted in Malayalam. Furthermore, the mob also vowed to conduct ‘Sujood’ (a kind of prayer) in the disputed building of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya again. Also, they have decided to continue ‘Sujood’ in the disputed structure called ‘Gyanvapi Mosque’ which is built on the ruins of a temple in Varanasi. They said they are not leaving for Pakistan or Bangladesh and if they do so, they will take the Sangh Parivar along with them. “Will do Sujood in Babri Masjid again. We will do Sujood in Gyanvapi too. Insha Allah Insha Allah…Reminding you Sanghis..Won’t leave for Pakistan, won’t leave for Bangladesh. We will go to 6 feet down under instead. Sanghis, listen to us before we go, If we go, we will “take” you also with us,” said the protesters who attended the PFI demonstration. In the video, a boy could be heard raising the slogan, “Hindus should keep rice for their last rites, and Christians should keep incense for their last rites. If you live decently, you can live in our land, and if you don’t live decently properly, we know Azadi (freedom). Live decently, decently, decently.” People attending the rally were repeating the slogan. To this speech, Justice Joseph, you said that hate speech is a vicious cycle and that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What you essentially hinted at here was that the speech calling for the genocide of Hindus and Christians was a reaction and therefore, justified. I would remind you that PFI is a banned terror outfit. You, with your comment, ended up blaming Hindus for the genocidal comments by a banned Islamic terror outfit. You then went on to repeat your incendiary remark when advocate Vishnu Jain mentioned the calls for Sar Tan Se Juda being given to Hindus over allegations of perceived “blasphemy”. At the insistence that the petitioner must include these hate speeches in his petition as well, given that he seems to be extremely concerned about fraternity, brotherhood, and peace, you called the submissions a “drama” and summarily moved on after calling the state impotent. As a citizen and a Hindu who has spent the better part of the last decade documenting hate speech and crimes against Hindus, sir, I have a few questions based on this exchange. I can only hope that an institution that believes that dissent is the safety valve of democracy would directly, or indirectly, provide an answer to my questions. 1. Earlier during the hearing, you had said, “if you break the law then the law will befall you like a tumble of bricks. If you want to become a superpower there has to be a rule of law”. I agree with you. I have for a long time advocated for the State to enforce its writ with force. Why did you abandon this principle completely when lawyers like SG Tushar Mehta, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and PV Yogeshwaran pointed towards calls for death, murder, and genocide being given to the Hindu community – individually or as a group of people, based on their religion? 2. When someone who is meant to dispense justice smiles at the mere mention of calls for Brahmin genocide and then proceeds to offer a justification for such calls based on what a politician said decades ago, do you truly believe you have the moral fortitude to be the arbiter of Nyaya. 3. If you truly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, as an educated, ordained dispenser of Justice, would you say that Hindus taking out rallies against their rights being trampled by an intolerant community and demanding that the state takes appropriate action is also a reaction? Let me attempt to break this down. As 2022 drew to a close, at OpIndia, we attempted to analyse 153 cases of “Love Jihad” that we had reported. Every one of them had a religious angle where the Hindu woman was persecuted based on her religion. Some Muslim men pretended to be Hindu, Hindu women were force-fed beef, being converted to Islam or pressured to do so, cases of forced Halala, and so on. In the 153 cases, we saw that in 22 of these cases, the Muslim man had either force-fed beef to the Hindu woman, forced her to wear a hijab, or broken idols, stopping her from following her faith and converting to Islam. In 21 such cases, the Muslim man had threatened to make private videos public and in 3 cases, threatened the Hindu woman with beheading. Out of the 153 cases, 125 cases were those with adult victims whereas 28 were minor victims. Now, these are just the cases OpIndia managed to cover. There were several more that we missed or did not know about. This is just one year. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that a rally by Hindus demanding an anti-conversion law in the state of Maharashtra is a justifiable reaction? I would certainly not say it is an “equal and opposite reaction”, thank God, but it is a justifiable one nonetheless. Let us take this further. I am sure you must have seen the video where two Islamists beheaded Kanhaiya Lal. The man who insulted Hindus’ faith and provoked Nupur Sharma into making that statement on television roams free today. Nupur Sharma’s life has been ruined forever. The court, at that time, blamed Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” for the murder of several people by Islamists. After losing hope in the State and the Judiciary in this case, if Hindus say that they will economically boycott the community murdering their brethren so that they can get the Islamists to maybe feel the consequence of going on murderous rampages, would you not consider that a “reaction” (still not an equal and opposite one). Why were the calls for genocide by DMK politicians and PFI terrorists considered a “reaction” by you but not the protests of the Hindu community? 4. When hate speech against Hindus was brought up in court, you said that the State was impotent in handling such hate speech on time. I agree with you, sir. The state is impotent when it comes to dealing with an intolerant minority. I have written extensively to that effect. But I have two questions. Firstly, when the State becomes impotent, citizens turn to the judiciary with the hope that their rights will be protected. Why were you more than happy to hear the pleas of a Muslim petitioner while dismissing those of Hindu lawyers representing Hindus demanding their rights? Secondly, by saying that the State is impotent and that they should have acted against hate speech against Hindus, you essentially insinuated that the court has no business getting into those aspects and that curtailing such genocidal calls is the job description of the state. If that is true, why did you not reach the same conclusion as far as the petition in question by a Muslim man is concerned? 5. You, Justice Joseph, believe it is your right to criticise the State where it errs and therefore deemed it appropriate to call the State impotent – an assessment I happen to agree with. However, if the unelected can call the elected impotent based on their morality, why is the court above questioning by ordinary citizens? Why does the court deem it appropriate to haul citizens over the coal over “contempt” charges when their opinions are questioned? The Supreme Court has in the past taken judicial notice of ‘off the cuff’ remarks in a petition filed by the Election Commission against some oral observations made by a Judge of the Madras High Court in Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar , (2021) 9 SCC 770 . The Court clarified that oral remarks are not a part of the official record and do not express any formal opinion and hence, cannot be expunged. The Court has highlighted that most such oral observations are elicitation-oriented. However, the Court relayed some apprehension about an increasing trend of Judges making caustic observations against litigants during hearings. The Supreme Court highlighted that “ We must emphasize the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misrepresentation”. The case of the Election Commission was that in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the oral observations of the Judge of the Madras High Court of a “murder charge” was incorrect. The Supreme Court observed, in this context, that the remarks of the High Court were “harsh” and that the metaphor was “inappropriate”. If not in the interest of Justice and Nyaya, at least in the interest of being consistent, I am pressed to wonder if you would be more mindful in your oral comments and observations going forward. Personally, I have immense faith in the Judiciary as an institution. However, as a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that ‘justice’ will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”.

While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Nuh violence: How the media crafts a narrative to whitewash violence unleashed by Islamists and blame Hindus instead While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a "rumour", it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Nupur J Sharma 1 August 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Mewat violence, image via NDTV On 31st July, almost 4000 Hindus participated in a Jalabhishek Yatra by Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The religious procession came under attack by an Islamist mob in Nuh, Haryana. While Hindus were trapped in a hostage-like situation, news emerged that two home guards have been killed in the violence unleashed by Islamists during the Jalabhishek Yatra on a Shravan Somvar, the auspicious Monday of the Sravan month. The police told OpIndia that one of the home guards was killed in the stone pelting by Islamists while the other was shot dead when the violence by Islamists was unleashed. Speaking to OpIndia, VHP also informed that several temples had come under attack in the Nuh area of Mewat after the Islamists unleashed premeditated violence against Hindus. One video which went viral on social media was a Hindu talking about how a Temple had come under attack and how the Islamists had burnt alive 3 Hindus. It was a live video that was uploaded on Instagram. There were several other videos and pictures that emerged which showed the extent of the violence unleashed by Islamists. VHP has claimed that almost 30 temples came under attack in Nuh, however, the police have not confirmed the exact number of temples that were attacked. VHP also said that the violence was planned and that the stones and bricks had been collected by the Islamists at least 2 days in advance. OpIndia was told that they were using Bajrang Dal activist ‘Monu Manesar’ as an excuse to spread fake news and incite violence. Interestingly, almost on cue, several Islamists on Twitter started sharing an old video of Monu Manesar alias Mohit Yadav, claiming that he was present at the Shobha Yatra and therefore, the violence erupted. This, however, turned out to be false. OpIndia did a detailed fact-check confirming that the video was from last year and that Monu Manesar was not present at the religious procession. Essentially, the Islamists seem to have meticulously planned to unleash violence against a Hindu religious procession that takes place every year. The police have confirmed that the procession had the required permission from the police. After unleashing planned violence against thousands of Hindus, they started spreading fake news on Twitter claiming that the violence was unleashed because of the presence of Monu Manesar. This turned out to be fake since Manesar was not present at the procession at all. The media extended all the help to the Islamists to blame the victims after the violence The media, on its part, ensured that they extend help to the Islamists to blame the victims after unleashing violence against devotees. Maktoob media, the Islamist portal which had tried to shield Islamists during the JNU violence after anti-CAA protests and the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, peddling fake news regularly, published two reports on the issue that deserve a harder look. Their first report on the issue was headlined, “Haryana: 1 killed, 5 injured as clashes breakout during VHP rally in Nuh”. The headline itself hinted that the rally turned violent, essentially insinuating that it was the Hindus who were a part of the religious procession turned violent. Note how in the headline they fail to even acknowledge that it was a religious procession. The first part of their report also fails to identify the “rally” as a religious procession. It further repeats the trope that the rally itself turned violent, not that it was attacked from the outside, insinuating that it was the Hindus who unleashed violence and not the Islamists – this, when 2500-4000 Hindus were stuck in a hostage-like situation for hours in a temple, rescued only on Tuesday morning. In the report, they also inserted the Monu Manesar angle, further claiming that the Muslims were opposing Manesar being a part of the procession because it would “disturb harmony”. They write, “The violence broke out around Monday noon when around half-a-dozen vehicles carrying devotees reached Nuh Chowk leading to rumors that Monu Manesar was inside one of the vehicles”. While Maktoob acknowledges that it was a “rumour”, it failed to include in their report that the rumour was also spread by Islamists themselves and then, this rumour was used to justify the violence. Manesar was not a part of the procession. But even if we assume for a moment that he was, it is interesting that Islamists used that as an excuse to unleash mass-level, planned violence against Hindus, attack on Temples and holding almost 4000 devotees hostage. They used this to even justify the murder of 2 home guards and several Hindus who were injured. Here are some images of Hindus who were seriously injured during the violence which was unleashed by Islamists. Injured person in Nuh violence Injured person in Nuh violence Here is a video of an injured Hindu after the mob violence by Islamists. This is the condition of Hindus due to a mere rumour that one individual would be present at a religious procession that was attended by thousands. And the rumour is being used to paint the Muslims as the victims and whitewash the unbridled violence which was unleashed against Hindus on a religious procession and the attack on temples. Yogendra Yadav, who was also involved in the planning stages of the Delhi anti-Hindu riots “reacted” to the violence and blamed the Hindus instead. This quote was used by Maktoob media to further shield the Muslim mob. In the first paragraph of the report, Maktoob writes, “As the violence broke out during a procession organized by the right-wing group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Haryana’s Nuh district on Monday, it quickly escalated to other parts of the state, including Gurugram, where a Hindutva mob set a mosque on fire and fired gunshots”. First and foremost, they brand the mob Hindutva while they failed to identify who started the violence in Nuh. Then, even in their first paragraph, they fail to mention that the violence was started by the Muslims and give the impression that the attack on the mosque is also a part of the same violence that was done by the Hindus in Nuh, while it was the Muslims who started the violence. It is pertinent to note that the under-construction building, which is a disputed structure and the case is in court, was set ablaze in Gurgaon after the violence spread to Sohna Chown on the 31st of July. Investigation is underway and the police have not ascertained details. There are some Hindus and Muslims who have been detained by the police. While the first report failed to mention Temples being under attack, the second report mentioned a mosque. While the first report failed to identify Islamists and even justified the violence by a Muslim mob, the second report targeted Hindus without giving context to the violence being initiated by the Muslim mob in Nuh. It is evident that the aim of Islamist and Leftist media is to create confusion and shield the Islamists who attacked thousands of Hindus in Nuh. Maktoob media is just one of the foot soldiers shielding the mob and normalizing violence against Hindus.

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

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

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

'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

With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. ‘Muslims must stay away from Garba’: A viral tweet and a conversation I must have with my readers With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly - I stand by every single word in those tweets. Nupur J Sharma 3 October 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Maa Durga (Image credit: Newstrack) On the 29th of September, an innocuous tweet about Garba made me the subject of an ocean of support, but also of sub-human vitriol, abuse and slander. As they say, if one can’t handle the heat, one should get out of the kitchen. Frankly, social media vitriol by Islamists and their ideological backbones only act as fuel. I thrive on it. I know I should be crying copious amounts of tears, much like the Left, because the non-Left always tells me that we need to play that game “smartly”. But I can’t. I don’t feel victimised. I feel vindicated. I believe for the larger Hindu cause, it is only desirable that the poison rises to the surface – the poison against Hindus, against Hindutva, against this great civilisational land for which our ancestors bled and died. The tweet that went viral, was a rather mainstream opinion – mainstream if one actually gets out of the South Delhi, South Mumbai circuit and bothers to interact with the rest of the country – Muslims should stay away from Hindu festivals, Garba in this case, because it is a deeply religious celebration of the Navdurga – those who believe idolatry is a sin and that polytheists should be slayed wherever they are found, have no business attending Hindu festivals. With over 2 million impressions and thousands of mentions (good and bad), I feel it is important I talk about my position to my readers because this position, I believe, is important for the longer civilisational battle that Hindus seem to have been sucked into, willingly or unwillingly – I stand by every single word in those tweets. This article is not meant to be an explanation for the Islamists and Leftists who seem to have lost their sleep over this rather average opinion. It is meant to be a conversation between my readers and me through the only medium I can truly express myself – because Twitter, I believe, is a tawdry medium made for punchlines, not elaborate discussions. I have been running OpIndia for over 5 years now, and year after year, on every single major Hindu festival, we document how devotees come under attack by Islamists, Leftists and sometimes, the state. In 2020, right before the anti-CAA violence broke out, there was a spate of attacks against Hindus. It started with the Hauz Qazi temple vandalisation in the heart of Delhi and was followed by several attacks against Durga Puja processions. In 2021, we saw the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, large-scale attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh and the Bengal post-poll violence specifically directed against Hindus and this is just a timeline off the top of my head. In between all of this, we also witnessed a global cabal trying to vilify Hindus by using euphemisms like Hindutva – from “Dismantling Global Hindutva” to Leicester – Hindus are being vilified, targeted, beaten, attacked and shunned. The propaganda crescendo, dare I say, is almost Nazi-esque in nature – stereotype and vilify an innocent, indigenous population to an extent that even their genocide seems justifiable. The attacks against Hindus by Islamists, the world over, are not something that should surprise us. We don’t even need to go into Islamic theology to understand that their hate for Polytheists comes from their deep faith in their scripture. Frankly, I never understood why we need to start quoting scriptures to make our point. We don’t need to talk about Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) Verse 191, Surah 3 (Ali ‘Imran) Verse 151, Surah 4 (An-Nisa) Verse 56, 89, 101, Surah 5 (Al-Ma’idah) Verse 14, 51, 57, Surah 8 (Al-Anfal) Verse 65, 69, Surah 9 (At-Tawbah) Verse 5, 14, 23, 28, 29, 37, 58, 111, 123, Surah 21 (Al-Anbya) Verse 98 so on and so forth. We just need to look at documented evidence about their collective conduct towards Hindus. Even as this Garba controversy was brewing, OpIndia documented how Muslim men in Indore and Ahmedabad pretended to be Hindus to access Garba events just so they could film Hindu girls and how a minor was gang raped by Muslim men who said they will get Jannat because they raped a Hindu woman and that everything was “fair” in Islam. Even as the controversy brewed, Muslim youth forcibly entered a Garba event in Jaipur. Even as this controversy brewed, we reported NIA revelations about PFI planning to bomb several Hindu religious places during Dussera and Diwali. I am not even talking about centuries of persecution. I am not talking about Aurangzeb, Babar and their likes (or even the support they find among Indian Muslims today). I am not going back decades to talk about Hindus being burnt alive in Godhra or the Malabar Genocide of Hindus, the Khilafat movement and the partition. I am merely talking about the news that emerged in a span of 48 hours – 30th September and 1st October. With thousands of temples desecrated to build mosques, the ongoing persecution of the Hindu faith does not need a theological debate to find legitimacy. One only needs to open their eyes and look around. With news emerging on a daily basis, what is it then, that forces people to convince themselves that sectarian hate against Polytheists is a figment of the Hindu imagination? I believe the aim is guilt-tripping Hindus. To place the responsibility of syncretic culture only on the shoulders of Hindus so the community is forced to accept every aggression against themselves without any semblance of retaliation or self-defence. With all of this evidence, Hindus are expected to uphold the mythical syncretic culture where Muslims of all hues must be embraced and invited to participate in Hindu festivals, festivals that celebrate the divine feminine – deities that Islam considers demonic. The evidence that the insistence on attending Garba is not rooted in religious respect or reverence but to ensure that the Hindu community’s spirit of self-defence is broken down completely, is aplenty. Arfa Khanum Sherwani, The Wire journalist who claims to fight for Muslim rights took to Twitter to talk about how the Hindu insistence that Muslims should stay away from Garba is breaking down the last shred of the composite culture that remains in India. She termed Hindus “Hindutva Fascists” for asking Muslims to stay away, given that certain sections of the Muslim community mock, desecrate and abuse Hindu deities. Today, when Arfa is talking about the composite culture of India and calling Hindus ‘fascists’ for asking those who don’t believe in the feminine Hindu deity to stay away from Garba, it is important to remember that Arfa had earlier said that “Bharat Mata ki Jai” is communal because Muslims are being forced to submit to the concept of feminine deity when they follow the “One God” concept. 2018 tweet by Arfa Khanum Sherwani The proud Muslima is calling Hindus “fascists” because they essentially took her assertions at face value, as one of the representatives of the Muslim community, and said that since Muslims believe that submission to the feminine deity is “communal” and “fascistic”, maybe Muslims have no business attending Garba festival. And, to rub the communal Hindu’s nose in the mud, she attended a Garba festival and posted the video online as well. I will not be posting the video of her at Garba in this article because it appears that she was there with a minor, presumably her daughter according to several tweets, and no child should pay for the sins of her mother. Now, does it make Hindus fascists if we simply take these assertions made by Muslim representatives at their face value and why should we not believe that Arfa attended the Garba festival simply because she wants to taunt the Hindu community? Hindus, on the other hand, to counter this burden, try to push the burden onto the Muslims – they say if Hindus are supposed to accept Muslim participation in Hindu religious festivals like Navratri, non-Muslims should also be allowed to enter Mecca, offer prayers to their deities in a Mosque, so on and so forth. That is a facetious argument, used merely to point toward hypocrisy, not necessarily for implementation. Frankly, I have no problem if non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca and Mosques don’t allow Hindus to worship their deities on their premises (the legitimate ones, not ones built over ruins of Hindu temples, of course). Religious activities are for those who believe in the Deity/God being worshipped – not for those who have no veneration for the religion or the divine power being prayed to. I don’t want to enter Mecca. As a Hindu, I have no faith in Islam and therefore, my presence there has no logical basis for it. But the fact that the very Muslims, who think violence is justified if Hindus so much as pass through “Muslim areas”, think that it is their constitutional right to enter Hindu religious festivals even though they have no faith in the Deity being celebrated, is an argument that gives rise to such facetious demands – a sign of desperation and anger. Besides the burden of maintaining India’s mythical syncretic culture, one shabby and effective ploy used by the defenders of this shenanigan is to de-hyphenate religion from our festivals. Diwali becomes a “festival of lights”, Holi becomes a “festival of colours” and Garba becomes merely a folk dance. The deep religiosity attached to these festivals is discarded, even delegitimised, so our religious festivals can be “secularised” and used to display the disrobed mockery of Hindus by Islamists. In their ‘dismantling global Hindutva’ propaganda, where Hindutva is just a euphemism for Hinduism, this strategy fits perfectly – chip away everything Hinduism stands for to ensure that nothing is left to fight for in the end. Hindus must, in my opinion, vociferously assert the religiosity of their festivals because if they don’t, they might not have much to celebrate in the future. Not all Muslims I am deeply aware that my position on Hindu festivals could be unpalatable to some Hindus, who are fundamentally inclusive. Despite intimate knowledge of everything I have said and covered in this article, a nagging thought that would gnaw at them is that not all Muslims are the same. Their friend, their neighbour, their building contractor, their fruit seller and the average Muslim on the street trying to earn an honest living has nothing to do with hate for Hinduism, they would like to believe. This is partly true, of course. All Muslims are certainly not the same. In fact, in one of my articles about how Islamophobia is a Muslim brother ploy, I had said exactly this – it would make sense for the Muslim community to fight “Muslimophobia”, however, “Islamophobia” is a ploy to skirt criticism of the problematic religious tenets that dehumanise others. Having said that, what I can’t seem to find an answer to is who are those thousands who take to the streets to chant Sar Tan Se Juda, as we saw during the Nupur Sharma fiasco? Who were those two Islamists who murdered Kanhaiya Lal? All Muslims are not the same, yes, but with thousands and lakhs of Muslims baying for Hindu blood, how do you differentiate? Are they not Muslims and do their wishes not adhere to true Islam? Why do so many factions of the Muslim community resort to unbridled violence against non-Muslims the world over? I am no Maulana and these are questions that the Muslim community has to answer. What makes these misgivings worse, is the fact that we hardly saw condemnation for Islamist violence against Hindus. When the Delhi anti-Hindu riots took place, despite ample evidence that it was a planned attack against the Hindu community, the entire global cabal of Leftists and Islamists employed all the resources at their disposal to prove that it was an anti-Muslim “pogrom”. When Nupur Sharma came under global threat and chants of Sar Tan Se Juda echoed on the streets, the Muslim community shunned away from condemning the bloodthirsty monsters. In fact, there were tweets even justifying the “anger” of the Muslim community by saying that Nupur Sharma crossed a line. Judges of the Supreme Court no less blamed Nupur Sharma for the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal by Islamists and the Liberals simply cheered them on. When the larger Muslim community remains mute against Islamist aggression, whitewashes cases of genocide, calls cases of rape and murder of Hindu girls fake and made up and justifies violence against Hindus for speech, Hindu misgivings are reasonable, at the very least. If the Muslim community believes that this mistrust is misplaced and that they truly wish to participate in Hindu festivals not to insult, desecrate, mock and dismantle Hinduism, they need to give Hindus a reason to trust them and explain the parts of their faith that propagate violence. If they think the violence and mockery of the Hindu faith is a part of Islam, they need to evolve and summarily denounce the last stone pelter and hardliner on the streets. Failing this, and failing the blanket and genuine condemnation from the larger Muslim community of every act of violence perpetrated against the Hindu community, Hindus have a right to defend their faith against aggression, verbal or physical, just as any community under siege would. Essentially, this entire guilt-tripping of Hindus during their festivals is an effective way to make the Hindu community accustomed to their own persecution. To quote Sita Ram Goel, “The point that all of you are trying to make is that Hindus should not stand up and speak in defence of their own religion and culture, that Hindus should not try to analyse and understand the factors and forces in the field around them, in short, that Hindus should remain at the receiving end for all time to come. We are sorry we have to reject your advice”.

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 Reality Bytes 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: The Untold History of 200 Years of Hindu Persecution & What Lies Ahead | #SangamTalks Political analyst reveals shocking patterns of violence spanning 200 years of Indian history. Discover how the Khilafat movement connects to modern conflicts and learn why understanding this history is crucial for India's future. The speaker exposes systematic persecution while revealing uncomfortable truths about partition, communal violence, and constitutional bias. Essential viewing for anyone seeking to understand the real dynamics behind India's communal tensions. *Key Points* - Tracing violence patterns from 1840s Moplah riots to modern Delhi riots - Khilafat movement's lasting impact on Indian Muslim politics - Constitutional and policy solutions for Hindu protection - Media narratives vs historical ground realities *Concepts explored* - Malabar genocide, two-nation theory, religious pluralism, Ummah concept, population exchange, street veto politics, Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu civilizational state, partition history, communal violence patterns *About 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/ *Topics covered* 00:00:00: Introduction: Khilafat 2.0 and Contemporary Parallels 00:03:45: Historical Roots: 1840s Moplah Violence and Ottoman Influence on Indian Muslims 00:15:30: Khilafat Movement 1919-1922: Gandhi's Support and Malabar Hindu Genocide 00:28:45: Partition Analysis: Why Muslims Stayed in India and IUML's True Purpose 00:42:15: Modern Patterns: 2019-2022 Violence from Hauz Qazi to Kanhaiya Lal Murder 00:56:20: Constitutional Critique: Secularism vs Hindu Civilizational State 01:08:30: Solutions Framework: Specific Laws Against Islamic Fundamentalism 01:14:25: Concluding Analysis: Recognizing Khilafat 2.0 and Future Preparedness Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3nhAUpe7aBm1rFCBgoWWcA/join Join our YouTube channel to get updated on new video releases: SangamTalks : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalks SangamTalks Hindi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksHindi SangamTalks Business : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamBusiness SangamTalks Punjabi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksPunjabi SangamTalks Tamil : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksTamizh SangamTalks Malayalam : https://www.youtube.com/@sangamtalksmalayalam SangamTalks Bangla : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksBangla SangamTalks Marathi : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksMarathi SangamTalks Kannada : https://www.youtube.com/@sangamTalkskannada SangamTalks Bhojpuri : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksBhojpuri SangamTalks Clips : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksMedia SangamTalks Shorts : https://www.youtube.com/@SangamTalksShorts 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 Whatsapp : https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va95hH77z4kb3h4JaD1s Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/sangamtalks Website : https://www.sangamtalks.org Donate : https://www.sangamtalks.org/donate #KhilafatMovement #HinduGenocide #MalabarRiots #TwoNationTheory #IslamicFundamentalism #HinduCivilizationalState #PartitionHistory #CommunalViolence #ConstitutionalBias #ReligiousPluralism #UmmahnConcept #PoliticalIslam #IndianHistory #HindutvaAcademics #BreakingIndiaForces #HistoricalNarratives Play Video Play Video 01:06:44 OpIndia Reality Bytes 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 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 Reality Bytes 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

It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. Dharma Sankat over Dharma Sansad: Calls for violence and a dilemma for Hindus It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand - it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. Nupur J Sharma 24 December 2021 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] For the past two days, Twitter is rife with videos of a three-day event called Dharma Sansad, organised in Haridwar, Uttarakhand. During the event, several Hindu leaders like Yati Narsinghanand allegedly called for violence. The videos doing the rounds on social media have content that, on the face of it, appear divisive and inflaming. If the videos doing the rounds are authentic, no individual in their right mind could condone the speech being made where they are essentially saying that they are ready to murder Muslims the first chance they get. Snippets of the Dharma Sansad were splashed on Twitter. There were claims that Hinduism and Hindutva are the same, given that these statements were made by saffron-clad “sadhus” and others said that these videos indicated that Hindu terrorism was real. In a video shared by the Left, Yati Narsinghanand was heard saying that Hindus need to collect better weapons than the Muslims, given that in a battle, those with better weapons win. Thread on a 3 day "Dharm Sansad" organised in Haridwar by Hindutva groups where explicit calls were given for Hindus to pick up arms against Muslims. #HaridwarGenocidalMeet Day 1, 17 Dec: Yati Narsinghanand said, "swords won't be enough to kill Muslims. We need beater weapons." pic.twitter.com/MTL8u1H7F3 — Kaushik Raj (@kaushikrj6) December 22, 2021 He said that more kids (to fight the demographic battle) and better weapons are the only things that would save Hindus in a civilisational battle. He said that every Hindu had the responsibility of protecting their own kids and the women of their house. The next was a short speech snippet of Swami Sagar Sindhu Maharaj from Roorkee. The tweet said that he appealed to Hindus to “at least keep swords” and asks them to purchase weapons of at least Rs. 1 lakh. In the video, Swami Sagar Sindhu Maharaj could be heard saying that one could use mobiles that cost only Rs 5,000, but Hindus should have good weapons of at least Rs 1 Lac so that, if anyone ever enters their house, they would not escape alive. The important point to note here is that he said that those weapons would be used as a means of self-defence if anyone enters the house, not for unprovoked genocide. On Day 2, Swami Dharam Das Maharaj made a speech that was indefensible. He said that he would have killed former PM Manmohan Singh if he could gather weapons. Another problematic video was where one Swami Prabhonanand called for a “safai abhiyaan” of Muslims. There were other videos where it was allegedly said that Hindus need someone like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and Prabhakaran to save Dharma. OpIndia personally cannot vouch for the authenticity of these videos, however, given the statements being made, it leaves little to the imagination as to what the full content of the Sansad was. In a civilised society, elements that call for violence and provoke citizens to pick up arms against other civilians would be rounded up and put behind bars. But in an increasingly polarised society, divided into religious lines, we see far too many fissures and desensitisation to calls for violence. When these speeches became viral on social media, the first reaction of most Hindus who follow the news regularly was to either look away or to post a video of AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi making an equally hateful speech. In that video, Owaisi was seen warning police personnel and saying that once Yogi returns to his temple as the Mahant and PM Modi returns to the mountains, there would be nobody to save them from their eventual fate. The video that several Hindus shared on social media went unnoticed by those outraging against Dharma Sansad. In fact, it was Asaduddin Owaisi who took to Twitter to share how his party had filed a complaint against the speeches made during Dharma Sansad and that he was willing to launch a nationwide agitation if the Hindus sadhus were not arrested. When Vir Das went to the US and spoke about the two India’s that exist, perhaps this is one aspect that he should have spoken about. Two Indias – one where Hindus are booked when they make speeches like the ones made during Dharma Sansad, and another, where those like Owaisi go scot-free after calling for the genocide of Hindus on multiple occasions and real hate crimes like that in Punjab don’t even invite an FIR against the murderers. As I said, in any civilised society, both these elements would be thrown in jail and the locks thrown away in the Ganges – but that is not what happens. When statements are made criticising Islam and Prophet Muhammad, Muslim mobs take to the streets to shout “Gustakh-e-rasool ki saza sar tan se juda”. When that happens, as we saw in the case of Kamlesh Tiwari who was eventually murdered by Muslims, the law enforcement agencies arrest the one criticising Islam, not the one shouting for the beheading of the one who exercised his freedom of speech. We have seen examples aplenty where Muslim mobs have not only screeched genocidal slogans but acted on their slogans and gone on a rampage against Hindus. From the Delhi anti-Hindu riots to the mob violence in Bangalore, from the several cases where Muslim mobs lynched Hindus to more organised instances of violence like the one we saw in Bangladesh against Hindus, or even the violence in Maharashtra after lies of “blasphemy” were spread in Tripura. 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. 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 hoards exercise their street veto and make the State bend to their violent whims, Hindus have often taken to social media to talk about liberal hypocrisy, the impotence of the state, that is meant to have the monopoly on violence, and the overall neutering of the Hindu samaj, that sits back and merely watches their women getting raped, their men getting beheaded and the streets being permeated with Hindu blood. Amidst all of this, one cannot really discount the helplessness that the average Hindu feels. When Hindus were being massacred in Bengal and OpIndia covered the story of a Hindu girl who was gang-raped in from of her father by Muslim TMC goons looking for “Hindu women”, and the Bengal govt enabled the violence while the central government looked away, it was only human to, in between the sighs and wails, look for our Gopal Patha – Gopal Patha who could pick up weapons and save Hindus from the inevitable and horrifying end that was awaiting them. Did that make Hindus barbarians? Did the prayers for a saviour and the hope for retribution make them genocidal animals? Do victims become aggressors just because they want to be saved? It is from this stems the reality why we have been numbed to a large extent to speeches where the stray Hindu asks others to ensure they have weapons with which they can defend themselves. Firstly, even the Hindus who have been desensitised to these speeches know on a deeper level that these are merely empty words. When was the last time that rousing speeches gave rise to Hindu mobs that took to the streets with weapons, looking for Muslims to cut up? In the liberal fantasy universe, it is an everyday occurrence, but in real terms, it never really happens. The fact is that these leaders can call upon Hindus to maintain arms and fight for Dharma, but in the end, the actual “fighting” has to be done by average Hindus who hold work-a-day jobs and don’t attend genocidal sessions at their local madrassas, given that temples are certainly not used to congregate mobs, despite the wet dreams liberals seem to write about in Washington Post. This is exactly why Liberals and assorted Islamists are pressed to focus on “hate speech” while trying to villainize Hindus because there is no on-ground impact of these speeches that they can really focus on. Hindus don’t have a Mahmood Paracha who makes speeches in mosques asking to raise an armed militia. There is no Hindu equivalent of ISIS that will lionise terrorists, hail genocide, splash images of beheadings. There is no Hindu equivalent of the word “kafir”, there is no Hindu equivalent of ISIS and there is no Hindu equivalent of the Quran or Jihad. While focussing on hate speech, liberals and Islamists conveniently brush aside actual hate crimes against Hindus. It is how the Delhi anti-Hindu riots got morphed into an anti-Muslim pogrom even before the funeral pyres of Ankit Sharma and Dilbar Negi had gone cold. It is this sophistry that makes Hindus become desensitised to such speeches. While they know this will hardly translate to any bloodshed on the ground, they are pressed to keep their sane, peaceful core aside to look the other way because they know that those demanding for the arrest of these saffron elements would happily whitewash a Hindu’s murder to embolden radical Islamists, Khalistanis and swords for hire. They have lived through those experiences where jokes on their genocide were passed off as free speech, where their murder was whitewashed to peddle the “Muslim pogrom” narrative, where their daughters being abducted and forcefully converted were branded as “voluntary love affairs”. The Dharma Sansad poses a Dharam Sankat for most Hindus – give in to their basic survival instinct and look away from such speeches or preserve what is inherently good in them and condemn any call for violence thereof. I am not really ashamed to say that there is no right answer. If the Hindu genocides did not exist, if the Muslim mobs did not go on a rampage, if I had not covered the Delhi anti-Hindu riots and the flawed narrative of “Muslim pogrom”, if I was but a work-a-day citizen far divorced from the reality of the onslaught against Hindus, it would be so much easier to denounce such speech. It would be so much easier to take the moral high ground and say that everyone, whether it is a Yati Narsinghanand or an Asaduddin Owaisi, making speeches provoking violence should be arrested and left to rot behind bars. And somewhere in my heart, I believe this to be the case even now. I want all of these elements to be jailed and removed from society. It is only human to harbour dreams of peace and brotherhood. But when reality hits and one has to cover the brutal murder of yet another Hindu and one is hit with the realisation that even before you can document another step towards our civilisational end, the “liberals” have already started giving the murder a “context” to save their Islamist brethren, one gets jaded, jaded enough to suffer a dilemma when such videos emerge. It is not the Hindus who created a Swami Yati Narsinghanand – it is the Islamists, their rampages, their genocidal dreams and those who soft-pedal when Hindus are victimised on daily basis. The speeches made during the Dharma Sansad barely helps the cause of Hindus or Hindutva. Open calls to violence or wanting Hindus to become another Bhindranwale is not the answer. The solution to civilisational causes is the will of the people and that will translating to policy by the government of the day, not thuggish behaviour and calls to violence by political aspirants. It is the classic Godse conundrum – one knows why he did what he did, but with the murder of Gandhi, the Hindutva cause was forever damaged.

An in-depth report on the Delhi anti-Hindu riots of February 2020, authored by Nupur J Sharma, reveals the premeditated violence against Hindus since December 2019. Learn about the brutal murders, media misrepresentation, and the conspiracy detailed in her work, also available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B08DNNWNXR?ref_=cm_sw_r_cp_ud_dp_2ECQ0YQQQEG59X1HJHRG. Image Info 3 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 4 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 2 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Image Info 1 This is your About paragraph. Write a short introduction about yourself, your product or a specific feature. Publications The Delhi anti-Hindu riots were perhaps a pivotal moment in modern history. The anti-Hindu violence which broke out on the 26th of February 2020 in the national capital was a testament to how a deracinated state and the corporate media capitulate to the Islamic mob. The anti-Hindu riots was not a spate of violence which can be viewed and analysed in isolation. As per the chargesheets in the case, the planning for the violence started right from the 5th of December 2019 and after almost 3 years, the conspiracy led to several Hindus being brutally murdered – Ankit Sharma stabbed multiple times, Dilbar Negi burnt alive after his hands and legs were chopped off and many others, who were hacked to death merely for being Hindu. The corporate media, on its part, shamelessly branded the anti-Hindu violence an ‘anti-Muslim pogrom’, ignoring the conspiracy and 3 months of violence which led to the February violence, initiated by the Islamist mobs. 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. Ever since December 2019, almost on a regular basis, there was low level violence against Hindus, misinformation against CAA/NRC and genocidal calls being made. 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. Purchase E-Book Delhi Anti-Hindu Riots 2020, The Macabre Dance of Violence Since December 2019: An OpIndia Report Civilisational Advocacy 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. Explore Publications