Search this site

After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. Prime Minister Modi, Hindus are under siege, and now is the right time to speak up After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. Nupur J Sharma 15 July 2019 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] When one thinks of the political and civilisational era that we have been catapulted to, to truly explain what at least the Hindu population is living through, one must quote Charles Dickens – “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair”. When Prime Minister Modi got up on stage and said ‘Main Narendra Damodardas Modi, Ishwar ki shapat leta hoon..’, I was there in the audience hooting. The entire country applauded and heaved a sigh of relief. The hyenas had been thwarted. Not once, but twice. It was the best of times. It was the age of wisdom, the wisdom of knowing that the country had made the right decision. It was the epoch of belief, a belief that this government will stand by what’s right. It was the season of light and the spring of hope. Hope for a better future. A better India. However, the Modi era has been one where several factions of his supporters have different sets of demands from him. From burning cultural issues to economic demands and even varying expectations on foreign policy. This article, however, deals primarily with the cultural demands that have arguable been one that has delivered the ‘winter of despair’ for some of his ardent supporters. There is perhaps no merit in listing the cultural issues that have thus far remained untouched by the government of the day. The list is long and arduous. The current situation, however, can be taken as a yardstick to try and understand the ‘winter of despair’ that many seem to be experiencing. It was in the Budget session that Prime Minister Modi had spoken about the death of Tabrez Ansari. Personally, I found the speech astute and logical. The Prime Minister mentioned how because of one crime the entire state cannot be vilified and also, that all crimes, whether they occur in Jharkhand, Kerala or West Bengal need to be dealt with the iron fist of the law. He also said that just good ‘good terrorism, bad terrorism’, there can be no culture of ‘good crimes and bad crimes’, thereby subtly telling the opposition that they can’t highlight one Tabrez Ansari and diminish the other crimes in other places, presumably, since he mentioned West Bengal and Kerala, that of the murder of BJP karyakartas. However, the opposition is subtly impaired. The mention of Tabrez Alam from Prime Minister Modi ended up starting an avalanche that is not out of control and burying any semblance of reason in its path. There has been a spate of reports that claim that some Muslim or the other was forced to chant ‘Jai Shree Ram’. Most of those cases have been proven false. There have been tens of such cases where the ‘Congress ecosystem’ as branded by the PM himself have run with the narrative of Muslim being made to chant Jai Shree Ram when such cases have been proven to be fake. That, in turn, got international media like the BBC asserting the Jai Shree Ram had turned into a ‘murder cry’ . All this while, people in West Bengal being beaten up and killed for chanting ‘Jai Shree Ram’ slipped through the cracks. With the media and PM Modi himself never mentioning those poor souls. To add insult to injury, sections of the Muslim community have been on a rampage. There have reports of temple desecration like that in Hauz Qazi to protests over Tabrez going horribly out of control and Hindus being stabbed to death. Through it all, the media expectedly has kept stoic silence. They have preferred to shield the Muslim community and amplify even the fake cases of Muslim men being forced to chant Jai Shree Ram. Hindus are under siege. The section that supports Prime Minister Modi vociferously have started voicing their disenchantment with the fact that in his first term, PM Modi spoke against Gau Rakshaks and in his second term, right in the beginning of his innings, he spoke about Tabrez Ansari. Hindus have been lost in the cacophony of made up minority insecurities and the Prime Minister has maintained a stoic silence. There is another section of his supporters who have attempted to justify the silence by saying that the PM does what he does, and says what he says in his own time. That perhaps the government is waiting for an appropriate time to voice concern. Or, that ‘action’ is louder than words. Interestingly, PM Modi himself is doing no different from what he did in his first term. One doesn’t recall the last time the Prime Minister mentioned ‘Hindus’ specifically as the victims of horrid crimes heaped by the Muslim community. And if he didn’t do it in his first and got a second term regardless, one must analyse why that is. My colleague Rahul Roushan wrote a rather interesting article when PM Modi got his second term. In it, he describes how the ‘right-wing’ (for the want of a better phrase) does not understand Modi and each section views the Prime Minister as a manifestation of his own demands. The libertarians wonder why Modi isn’t being a libertarian, the culture right wonders why he is silent on cultural issues, the policy wonks wonder why he isn’t being more capitalistic and tilting towards socialism, so on and so forth. He writes that perhaps for the ‘right-wing’ to demand action from Modi, his supporters themselves need to understand the phenomenon of Modi and also ask themselves if their own silo of demands find resonance with a crowd substantial enough to make an impact. While I agree that most of his supporters don’t understand the Prime Minister and they view him from their own specific prisms, I disagree with Rahul when he says that his supporters need to evaluate whether their voice is being echoed by a substantial section, in essence, enough to make an electoral impact. The argument here is that to make the Prime Minister respond, the might of the collective voice on a specific issue, especially cultural issues, the group must be able to deliver an electoral body blow. The lack of resonance of cultural issues with a large group is why PM Modi won a second term in the first place because the grievances that arise today are the same ones that the cultural right had in his first time as well. Prime Minister Modi himself has fashioned himself as a virtuous politician rooted deeply in religion and spirituality. He has several times spoken about how electoral gains don’t drive him but it is standing by what is right, which is important. The message that has been received by his supporters is that he is a man looking to leave a legacy behind. A legacy of development, cultural renaissance, justice. If that is the essence of Modi, then the fact that the cultural right is not strong enough to make an electoral impact should not matter. When the Hindu culture is under siege, electoral gains or the lack of it shouldn’t matter and as his supporters know and respect PM Modi, one can be confident that it won’t matter. Why then should the Prime Minister not speak up when faith is being attacked? In his first term, the running narrative was that the government is new and it takes time to clean up the mess left behind by the previous government. Then, the government was under siege from Congress and was still viewed as the underdog. As one that might not come back to power in the second term because of the sustained campaign against it. Now, in its 6th year of governance and the Congress disintegrating, Prime Minister Modi does not have a formidable enemy anymore. The BJP government is no longer the underdog in the race. It is, perhaps, the only runner in the first place. The justification that it takes time to clean up the mess will no longer fly as a reason for silence. The only logical explanation to justify the silence would be to say that the Prime Minister cannot comment on law and order issues as it is a state subject and I would wholeheartedly agree with that. However, the PM himself opened the door when he spoke about Gau Rakshaks and now, Tabrez Ansari. If law and order issues were not to be commented upon, those incidents should have stayed out of his speeches too. One must also remember that PM Modi brings with himself his Gujarat reputation and a Modi who is silent is one which his supporters have a tough time adjusting to. Prime Minister Modi opened the door to the expectation of his vocal support to cultural issues when he said he stands against appeasement politics and that he would break the stronghold of ‘secular parties’. There are other more practical reasons why Narendra Modi needs to speak up. The mainstream media, or the Khan Market Gang as he calls it, is clearly emotionally invested in this narrative. In a country of over a billion people, it will always manage to find a random crime and give it a spin to project Hindus and by extension, the BJP itself, in poor light. It’s not a game he can win by remaining silent. Narendra Modi doesn’t stand to gain anything by commenting selectively on such matters. His political opponents will be his opponents anyway. But being selective is spreading disenchantment among his staunchest followers. He will still win elections due to sheer inertia and the pathetic state of the country’s opposition but he the faith that he commands will take a hit and even if it’s among a small section of the support base, it would be a travesty. While discussing this article, colleague Rahul Roushan said that Prime Minister Modi doesn’t send messages. He does what he does, and his support base takes whatever message they wish to take depending on their prism of expectations. However, a leader as astute as PM Modi knows exactly what message would be taken from his words or lack of it thereof. It is time to fix it and ensure that the house is united again. After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. While his ability to take long term action is uncontestable and the faith has been unshaken, the impact his silence has on short term morale can be and is proving to be devastating.

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.

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

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”.

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.

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

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

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.

Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. ‘Islamophobia’ does not exist: It’s time to push for this ‘politically incorrect’ reality Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don't follow their diktat for centuries. Nupur J Sharma 14 June 2022 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Protests against Nupur Sharma in India (Image credit: Al Jazeera) At the very core of humanity, is a war to survive. It is a paradigm that no animal or man can escape. The civilisational war we see today may be dressed up differently depending on the issue we choose to debate – reclamation of cultural heritage and places of worship, judicial reforms, police reforms, demographic challenge, citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring Islamic nations, the law against forceful religious conversion and the list is endless – however, at the very heart of it, every issue revolves around the survival of an ancient civilisation that has now morphed into a “secular” quip or a people, who have fought, for centuries, for the preservation of that ancient civilisation. When Rangeela Rasool was published by Mahashay Rajpal, the court had clearly exonerated him saying that commentary on historical figures, including Prophet, does not promote enmity between groups. That, however, did not stop the Islamists from murdering him brutally. It was also craftily brushed under the rug that Mahashay Rajpal had published Rangeela Rasool (written by Pandit Chamupati Lal) after serious provocation by the Muslim community where they chose to publish two books mocking Hindus and their faith. In this case, Mahashay Rajpal and Pandit Chamupati Lal chose to answer words with words. Book with a book. However, for the Islamists who constantly want special treatment and concessions from the Hindu community, that was “blasphemy”, a crime punishable by death under Sharia. The trajectory of the Nupur Sharma case was not too different. After the discovery of the Shivling, Islamists on television debates and social media started mocking Hindus and their faith. They called Hindus penis worshippers and far worse. During the TimesNow debate, when panellists started mocking the Hindu faith yet again by calling the Shivling a fountain, Nupur had had enough. She lashed out asking the Islamist panellist how he would feel if she was to mock their faith. She did not mock him per se – she asked how he would feel. And boy did the Islamists answer. They took to the streets, shouted ‘sar tan se juda’ slogans, pissed on her picture, hung her effigies and did everything that one expects from uneducated barbarians. So far, Nupur Sharma is safe. Alive. However, one has to reconcile with the fact that she is a woman marked for life. Wouldn’t take much for us to reconcile with it, sadly. That is just how the human race is. An atrocity that shocked us yesterday would become the norm tomorrow. The Hindu memory is painfully short and soon, the community would move on to the next outrage cycle leaving Nupur Sharma alone to deal with the consequences of bruising the extremely fragile sentiments of the Islamists. One would expect the Nupur Sharma issue to be one that united the Left and the Right (for the lack of a better phrase) in India. After all, it is the Left and the Liberals who claim that India is stifling freedom of speech and expression. They also rally vociferously for the right to offend and the right to criticise religion – we saw that in several cases – Munnawar Farooqi being a case in point. The Right, let us assume, would speak up because Nupur Sharma commented on Islam specifically, a religion they allegedly despise, but the Left would speak up for Nupur’s right to speech, therefore, uniting the two factions. That did not happen. Instead, there were cries about Hindus becoming increasingly hateful under the Modi regime, atrocities against Muslims being on the rise and general wails of Islamophobia that we have heard all too often. Pakistan approached the United Nations demanding action against India due to Nupur Sharma’s “Islamophobic comments”. Bhutto demanded that the UN take note of “rising Islamophobia” in India. Attempting to arm-twist the UN further, Bilawal Bhutto reportedly said, “Silence could be taken as complicity and could lead to further incitement to violence, communal discord and hate incidents”. Essentially, Pakistan told the UN that if it does not get involved and chastise a nation of 1.3 billion people because one woman politician went on a TV debate and made a 10-second innocuous comment that repeated what the Islamic hadiths say, Hindus would get emboldened to exercise their free speech further and incite the Muslims to riot and indulge in violence. If you find something fundamentally flawed in that argument, where 1.3 billion people need to be condemned for a factually correct statement by one person so that the tolerant, peace-loving, sar tan se juda chanting, stone-pelting and rioting Islamists do not indulge in violence, you are an Islamophobe. We live in an age where any criticism of Islam or even a comment on the collective behaviour of the Ummah based on facts is seen as Islamophobia. If you report a crime committed by Islamic fundamentalists with a clear religious motive, like conversion, it is Islamophobia. If you condemn the violence that the intolerant minority indulges in, it is Islamophobia. In this case, Nupur’s response to Hinduphobes was Islamophobia and the Hindu community’s condemnation of rape, death and beheading threats to Nupur Sharma was also Islamophobia – they are just upset about the comment, after all. A little anarchy is justified. A little violence is a part of the democratic process, it was said – the state must allow it. If you disagree with this asinine view, you, my friend, are an Islamophobe. So what is Islamophobia? The United States House of Representatives in December passed a bill called ‘Combating International Islamophobia Act’. It was introduced by famed Jihad supporter, Ilhan Omar. The bill aims to combat global Islamophobia. The bill allows the Department of State to establish an office to monitor and combat Islamophobia and address related issues and of course, it requires the submission of annual reports to Congress about global Islamophobia and what countries have done to act against it. The vague, subjective law allows all speech directed at Islam, forget criticising it, to be termed as Islamophobic – a term that in itself is problematic on several levels. A phobia, by its very definition, is an irrational fear. Islamophobia, essentially means, that anybody who comments negatively against Islam has an irrational fear of Muslims and Islam similar to that of xenophobia or racism. Firstly, it is rather hilarious that a bunch of converts believe that they are a separate race. But beyond that, to accept absolutely anything as “Islamophobia”, we need to evaluate if the fear of Islam or that of the Ummah is one that is irrational, to begin with. According to the UN definition, Islamophobia refers to irrational hostility and fear toward Islam, and therefore aversion and fear toward Muslims or the majority of them. It also refers to the practical consequences of such hostility in the form of discrimination, unequal treatment toward Muslims (individuals and communities) and their exclusion from the main political and social agenda. Let us break this down. The first defining characteristic of Islamophobia is that the fear and/or hostility has to be ‘irrational’. The predominant fear against Islam is that it treats non-Muslims as sub-humans and believes in waging Jihad against those who don’t follow Islam. That Jihad is violent and humiliating. They believe in converting non-Muslims by force and have indulged in several genocides of non-Muslims in the name of Islam. These are all factual statements. We have seen the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Jaish e Mohammad, Lashkar e Toiba, Hamas, Al Shabab, Hizballah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Lashkar e Jhangvi, Boko Haraam etc and the common aim of all of these Islamic organisations that have been designated as terror organisations, is to establish an Islamic Caliphate. India, specifically, has seen Islamic terrorism perhaps far more than any other nation in the world. Even if we move past the Mughal invasions, the Khilafat movement and the Malabar genocide of Hindus itself is an examples of how Muslims executed Hindus in a concerted manner because they had sworn their allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate. We have seen grooming gangs in the UK, grooming jihad in India, Taharrush in Egypt, Germany, the UK and other places like Pakistan, genocides across the world and sporadic incidents of violence directed at non-Muslims from Sweden, to Africa, the US, UK, Germany, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and everywhere else where a substantial Muslim population exists. The go-to reason to brand such basic facts as “Islamophobic” is to claim that none of this is the true representation of Islam. An erstwhile Muslim, Waseem Rizvi, had once gone to court with a list of Quranic verses that directed violence towards Kafirs. Here are some of them: Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) Verse 191: And kill them [in battle] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah1 is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. Surah 3 (Ali ‘Imran) Verse 151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority.1 And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers. Surah 4 (An-Nisa) Verse 56: Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a fire. Every time their skins are roasted through, We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise. Verse 89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away [i.e., refuse], then seize them and kill them [for their betrayal] wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper, Verse 101: And when you travel throughout the land, there is no blame upon you for shortening the prayer,1 [especially] if you fear that those who disbelieve may disrupt [or attack] you.2 Indeed, the disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy. This is a short indicative list. The full list of 26 verses listed by Waseem Rizvi can be read here . Therefore, the argument that it does not represent Islam is certainly not an accurate one. Let us, for a moment, assume that none of this represents Islam and it is indeed a peaceful religion that wishes nothing more than peaceful coexistence. Given that assumption, one has to then ask the question of why so many factions of the Muslim community take to terrorism and overall violence against non-Muslims. Who are those thousands and lakhs of Muslims who have, in India, taken to the streets to demand the beheading of Nupur Sharma? Are they not Muslims and do their wishes not adhere to true Islam? I am no Maulana and these are questions that the Muslim community has to answer. Given this, and the fact that their conduct has been similar throughout the world, can we really blame someone for being scared of Islam and can we, logically, call that fear irrational? For most living organisms, anything that threatens their right to exist would be deemed an enemy. Nobody in their right mind can say that all Muslims are the enemy, however, their fear that Islam threatens their existence is not misplaced, given the mountain of evidence and the trail of blood that stand as a witness. In fact, the term Islamophobia itself reveals the true intent of the Muslim Brotherhood in coining and furthering this term. Islam as a religion has to be open to criticism and it is completely rational to be scared of certain aspects of Islam, as detailed above. One may want to fight “Muslimphobia” and if that is the aim, the phrase used has to be that and not Islamophobia. When one shuts down all criticism of Islam and even deems quoting the Hadiths as blasphemy, one can safely argue that it is not the non-Muslim who is Islamophobic but those taken offence who are truly Islamophobic since they have a fundamental problem with their own texts being quoted. Frankly, one suspects, that the Muslim community themselves don’t believe that these facts are “Islamophobic”. This term, which was popularised by the widely fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, was only a tool to ensure that all comments and criticism of Islam is stifled. It was a tool to scare people into submission and exploit the innate goodness in the world that makes people not want to hurt the sentiments of others, overall. It is a mythical beast that has been peddled with influence and money to ensure that the atrocities of the Islamists get shielded by piggy-backing on the victims of real atrocities – those who have been discriminated against because of their colour, race or worse, religion (Hindus and Jews come to mind). If the Muslim community believes that the terrorists, stone pelters, those demanding Nupur Sharma’s beheading etc do not follow “real Islam”, they need to give the world a reason to trust them and explain the parts of their faith that propagate violence. If they think it is a part of Islam, they need to evolve and summarily denounce the last stone pelter and hardliner on the streets. Failing this, Islamophobia as a blanket term cannot stop people from fighting for their own survival by being scared of people who have persecuted those who don’t follow their diktat for centuries.

One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years - where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades. Ram Navami violence is not sporadic: If one read RC Majumdar, one would know that history, leading up to 1947, is being repeated right in front of our eyes One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years - where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades. Nupur J Sharma 11 April 2023 Previous Item Next Item [object Object] Aftermath of attack on Hindus in Himmatnagar (Photo Credits: PTI) Every year, Hindus come under attack when they take their religious processions out and this year was no different. During the Ram Navami Shobha Yatras, Hindus came under attack as Muslim mobs pelted stones, created arson, attacked unsuspecting Hindus and then, blamed Hindus for their own persecution. In Bengal, when Hindus came under attack, Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister, said it was the Hindus who pelted stones at their own procession because the Muslims can’t possibly commit violence during the month of Ramzan – they would be busy doing Namaz, after all. “Minority community was not at all involved as they were busy with Ramzan and Namaz”, she said. Not only that, she essentially insinuated that Muslims should annihilate the Hindus. “Can’t you step up now and stop these rioters and goons? If women are with me, then, I will show my power to the rioters…”, she was heard saying in another speech in April. “ Ki sonkha loghu bhai bona ra, Allah Tallah er kache doye kore danaga baaj der khotom korte parbe na (Can’t my brothers and sisters from the minority community pray to Allah to finish off these rioters),” she said . From Gujarat to Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and beyond, Hindus were hounded, attacked and humiliated while celebrating one of the most sacred festivals – Ram Navami and even as the intolerant minority went on a rampage, from Islamists to Leftists and even politicians blamed Hindus for coming under attack because they had the temerity to take out their religious processions through an area which was ghettoised by the Muslims. For most Hindus, India is a civilisational state of their ancestors, where their faith, culture, tradition and stories lie. A soil that has been soaked with the blood of their ancestors who fought for the integrity and honour of this land. It can safely be argued that if some start believing that Hindus have no right to exist in areas which are ‘no longer Hindu’ (remember ‘Muslim areas’ is now a legitimate term by the ‘secular’ commentariat), then Islamists who tore Bharat apart in the name of Islam, must not be allowed their religious rights in a nation with a distinct Hindu nation, despite the cries of secularism. It could perhaps be argued that the Nehru-Liaquat pact which skirted the full population exchange post-partition is the true culprit of the malaise we face today. Had India been left only with Hindus and Pakistan, created in the name of Islam, only with Muslims, perhaps Hindus would not be humiliated for taking out their religious processions in their own land. These arguments are often shot down as “hate speech” because it supposedly “creates” a divide, a divide that clearly already exists and has existed for 100s of years. For those who believe that Ram Navami processions and other Hindu religious processions have come under attack only recently after the rise of the BJP and perhaps, after the awakening of the collective Hindu consciousness in contemporary times, even a cursory reading of history would rupture that notion. RC Majumdar is one of the most noted historians of modern India. His most noted work was his 11-volume series on the history of India which starts tracing Bharat’s history right from ancient history to the freedom struggle. The final volume of the series, ‘Struggle for Freedom’, is considered one of the most authoritative accounts of the freedom struggle and the events that shaped Bharat, especially leading up to the partition of India. In Chapter 15 of his book “Struggle for Freedom”, RC Majumdar gives a bird’s eye view of the nature of Hindu-Muslim relations in the country, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s – a few years before the partition of India and around the same time of the Khilafat movement and the Malabar genocide of Hindus. The Muslim League, RC Majumdar days, regained its old strength after the Khilafat movement dwindled in India and started playing its old tricks of communalism. Gandhi had managed to reach a hollow “truce” through the non-cooperation movement which was supported by Hindus and Muslims for very different reasons – Muslims, specifically, for their Khilafat dreams. As the non-cooperation movement died down in Bharat, the hollow “peace” was exposed for what it is – naked hatred for Hindus. “At the back of it lay the old Muslim policy of deriving personal or communal advantages by cooperating with the Government against Hindus”, RC Majumdar writes. “The revival of the old communal spirit resulted in discords over petty issues, such as music before mosques, cutting down the branches of the pipal tree, held sacred by the Hindus, which obstructed the very long pole carried in the Muslim Tajjiya procession, the killing of cows in public places during Id ceremony, and things of this sort”, he writes. What is interesting is that RC Majumdar, the veteran historian, deemed it necessary to mention “music in front of mosques” as one of the distinct features which caused violence by the Muslim community. The slaughter of cows openly to humiliate Hindus was a feature that historically, was known, however, the fact that “music in front of mosques” got the Islamists to unleash violence against the Hindus then, a feature that is prevalent even today, is an interesting revelation. 1923 onwards, communal riots were an order of the day especially after the Hindus had started a shuddhi movement which was condemned by the Muslims, who were regularly converting Hindus by force at the time. In 1918, given the discord between Hindus and Muslims, a committee had been appointed at the Delhi session of Congress to draw up an “Indian National Pact”. A draft of the pact was placed before the committee in 1923. In the meantime, the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee, under the direction of CR Das, approved a strange “Hindu Muslim Pact”, specific to Bengal, that essentially curbed the rights of Hindus. Even in this pact, the “music in front of Mosques” played a prominent role. Two features of the pact, which was later rejected by the Congress committee, as was the National Pact, need to be analysed specifically. No music should be allowed before a mosque There should be no interference with cow killing for religious sacrifices, but the cow should be killed in such a manner as to not wound the religious feelings of Hindus. While no music in front of a mosque is something that the Muslim side specifically demanded, they also demanded their right to slaughter cows. The fact that the pact said that the manner of killing should not offend Hindus, it is pertinent to realise that any slaughter of cows would hurt the religious feelings of Hindus, regardless of the method adopted. While this Pact was rejected later, it goes to show this history of attacks against Hindus because of the establishment of so-called “Muslim areas” where even music being played by Hindus invited violence from the Islamists. RC Majumdar in his book then talks about incidents of violence that marred the period, with many of them revolving around music being played in front of mosques and Hindu religious processions being taken out from “Muslim areas”. Mr Majumdar writes, “One of the worst communal riots broke out in Calcutta in May 1923. It arose out of an Arya-Samajist procession playing music while passing before a mosque. The Arya Samajists contended that they were merely following a regular practice which was never objected to before, while the Muslims asserted that the music disturbed their religious prayer. So fighting commenced and continued for several days, in the course of which there were many casualties on both sides”. There are certain elements of what Majumdar wrote that deserve greater scrutiny. Firstly, Majumdar writes that the Arya-Samajists said that they were following regular practice and that the processions were never objected to. Several times, when Hindu religious processions come under attack by Muslim mobs, the Hindus are left flummoxed, claiming that they were simply doing what they have done every year, and could never understand why they came under attack that specific time. Even during the Delhi anti-Hindu riots, there were testimonies reported by media portals where Hindus expressed shock over the violence, saying that they have coexisted in the area for many years. This phenomenon does not seem to be new. One possible reason could be that the Muslim population increased over the years and what was acceptable then, became “haram” later, however, that aspect would need deeper study. Secondly, that the Muslims asserted it disturbed their prayers, is also an argument that is often used today to blame Hindus for the violence committed by Muslims. After the Ram Navami violence in Bengal in 2023, a Muslim cleric justified the violence by citing exactly the same reason. When the cleric was asked his views on the violence unleashed in Shibpur, Howrah on March 30, the cleric said that this is the month of Ramzan and when the Hindus were taking out the procession, it was time for Muslims to break their fast with Iftar. It was the state administration’s duty to make sure that the ‘Sobha Yatra’ passed the area either half an hour before or after the Muslims broke their Roza. He stated that the incident occurred in the evening during Maghrib Azaan. He claimed that if the procession had been held in the afternoon, this would not have happened. The violence occurred since Hindus chose an evening schedule for the ‘Sobha Yatra,’ which clashed with the Azaan time. Therefore, it is safe to say that the reasons employed by Muslims in the 1920s to attack Hindus are being used in 2023 to attack Hindus as well. To assume that there is any authentic grievance that leads to violence against Hindus would be naive. Essentially, everything points to the fact that the violence by the Islamists is a mere tool for religious supremacy because the very existence of Kafirs in spaces they assume to be their own offends their religious sensibilities. The fact that violence is indeed a tool for religious supremacy is proved by another incident narrated by RC Majumdar in his book. He writes, “The cause of the riot on Bakr-id day, 15th July, was an official notice closing an additional route through the Hindus quarters for cows destined for slaughter. The attempt of the Muslim butchers to take by force a cow through the prohibited road caused serious rioting in which about 12 Hindus were reported to have been killed and about a hundred seriously injured. Order was not restored till the military was called in and opened fire. Panic prevailed in Hindu quarters and houses and shops were closed for many days. A Hindu temple was desecrated and sporadic attacks on Hindu passers-by continued for several days. According to official estimates, hospital casualties were, Hindus – dead 8, injured 44; Muslims – dead 1, injured 25 and an unknown number being privately treated. Similar but less serious disturbances occurred in many other places on the Bakr-Id day. Some of the bigger street-fightings took place in Nagpur, Jubbulpore, and other places in CP where the Muslims, being much fewer in number, suffered more heavily than the Hindus”. Further, RC Majumdar writes, “On the day of Muharram, some Mohammedans accompanying the punja processions molested Hindu men and women whom they met on the road and afterwards entered the Sharan Vishveswar Temple, remained in possession of it for some hours and did some damage. The next day, a story went around that Hindus had caused mischief to a mosque, thereupon, Muhammadan mobs attacked all Hindu temples in the city, numbering about 15, and broke the idols. They also raided the Sharan Vishweshwar Temple and attempted to set fire to the temple car. The police were eventually obliged to fire”. The chronology of this event seems woefully familiar. While the Muslims committed violence when Hindus passed through “Muslim areas” so to speak, they also created violence on their festivals, forcing their way into Hindu areas and displaying how they were slaughtering a cow. Further, they created violence and took over a temple, and on the basis of a rumour, proceeded to attack all temples, desecrate idols and went on a rampage. Essentially, then and now, it would appear as though it does not particularly matter if the Hindu procession was passing a “Muslim area” or it was the festival of Muslims – the eventual brunt had to be borne by the Hindus either way – it is therefore not far fetched to say that even the outrages today aren’t about Hindus “disturbing” Azaan or “provoking Muslims”. It is merely about Hindus’ presence and the fact that Kafirs exist. Giving further credence to this, RC Majumdar writes, “The Hindu-Muslim relations continued to deteriorate in 1925 and 1926, the Bakr-Id ceremony causing serious riots in Delhi, Allahabad and Calcutta. No less than 16 communal riots took place in 1925, the worst of which were those in Delhi, Aligarh, Arvi and Sholapur. The most serious riot in 1926 took place in Calcutta in April over the question of music before the mosque. The riot which continued in full fury on 3, 4, and 5 April, caused 44 deaths and 584 injuries, besides looting, burning and desecration of both temples and mosques. There was another riot on 22 April, and the casualties were 66 killed and 391 injured. There was a third riot in Calcutta which continued from 11 to 25 July resulting in 28th Deaths and 226 serious injuries. There were also riots in the interior of Bengal as well as in Rawalpindi (14 killed and 50 wounded) and Allahabad (2 killed and 27 injured). There were no less than 5 riots in Delhi. The government made an unsuccessful effort to control, by regulation, the hours of music before the mosque but Hindus reacted very strongly against them”. Interestingly, even in this case, all of these riots happened because Hindus were playing music somewhere in the vicinity of a mosque. The state, then as it does now, tried to control the Hindus and impose legislation on them instead of controlling the Muslim mobs. In contemporary times, one can recall that this year itself, in 2023, almost 100 years after these riots, the Ram Navami procession was banned in Jahangirpuri because the year before, Muslims had created violence during Hindu religious processions. Now, like it was then, Hindus asserted their rights and continued with their religious procession as planned. Even in 1926, after the government tried to impose legislation stopping Hindus from taking religious processions out and playing music, the Hindus asserted their rights and ensured that their religious rights were not curtailed. In fact, over 400 Hindus were arrested after they decided to not pay heed to govt impositions to protect the Muslim sentiment. “Several communal riots broke out in 1927. At Kulkathi (Barisal, Bengal) a Muslim mob refused to allow passage to a Hindu procession which was permitted by the local authorities to proceed. The police opened fire, killing 17 and wounding 12 Muslims. Twenty-seven were killed in a communal riot in Lahore and eleven at Bettiah (Bihar)”, RC Majumdar wrote. In this case as well, the situation was then as it is now. Despite permission and the law being followed by the Hindus, the Muslims would have no part of it and attacked the Hindus regardless. This phenomenon of Muslims attacking processions by Hindus and insisting upon cow slaughter simply to humiliate Hindus was also written about by Dr BR Ambedkar in his book “Pakistan or the Partition of India”. He writes, “Another illustration of this spirit of exploitation is furnished by the Muslim insistence upon cow slaughter and the stoppage of muslim before mosques. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India, they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played before. a mosque in all Muslim countries without any objection. Even in Afghanistan, which is not a secularised country, no objection is taken to music before a mosque. But in India, the Musalmans must insist upon its stoppage for no other reason except that the Hindus claim right to it”. The fact that Hindu processions were being taken out from in front of mosques and/or music was being played in the vicinity of mosques was a point of massive riots and communal unrest that claimed the lives of several Hindus and Muslims with the Muslims often starting the violence citing hurt to their religious sentiments. During the Ram Navami violence in 2023, it was emphatically asserted that Hindus were responsible for being attacked because they had the temerity to pass through “Muslim areas”. That they deliberately provoked the Muslims by their presence in that area and that, had the Hindus not provoked them, the Muslims would not have gone on a murderous rampage against them. Their argument today is exactly the argument they were making 100 years ago – that Hindu presence in these “Muslim areas” provokes Muslims. The Hindus are saying today exactly what they were saying then – ‘this is our right’ and sometimes, ‘we have always lived in peace, how did we get attacked this time’. Either way, it would be a grave error for Hindus or the Indian political dispensation to assume that these attacks against Hindu religious processions are sporadic and lack pattern. What happened then led to the 1947 partition based on the principle that Muslims are a distinct nation unto themselves and cannot coexist with Hindus. The “Muslim area” demarcation is merely the same theory in play on a smaller scale. To ignore this violence or to assume that such low-level outrages are not leading to much bigger outrages would be foolish. One must remember that Moplah Muslims committed sporadic atrocities against Hindus for 100 years before the Malabar Genocide of Hindus took place. We, dare I say, are today somewhere in those 100 years – where what trajectory we might take depends on how the Hindus decide to steady their heart and if the state wakes up to uncomfortable realities that history has been trying to teach us for decades.

Prime Minister Modi, Hindus are under siege, and now is the right time to speak up After decades, India has found a leader that commands unconditional love and respect. A leader who has the ability to unite his house with one statement even after the world sees it is a divided house with irreparable cracks. Nupur J Sharma Next Item Previous Item

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 Next Item Previous Item